Forget One Windows, Microsoft says it's time to modernize your apps Remember when Microsoft first hyped the Windows 10 development platform? "One Windows" was the theme. "Just one API and one package to reach all Windows 10 devices – PC, tablet, phone and more," said Windows developer corporate VP Kevin Gallo at the time. That was in April 2015. Just two months later, everything was different …
Seems like modernizing apps would not be a good idea for MSFT. Drop those Win32 apps and people can start dropping Windows.
Even for people who wanted to run UWP apps; just make a UWP-runtime for Linux. It's my understanding it would be significantly simpler than Wine.
As the author notes, "Microsoft has done remarkable work in modernizing the PC platform."
Yes, once he explained what he means by the term "modernize" (US spelling, interestingly), that statement is quite true. It's also why I, like millions of others, am avoiding Windows 10 like the plague that it is. Microsoft has without a doubt done remarkable work in making Windows as stupid and unusable as it is.
Progress isn't really beneficial if you're standing on the edge of a cliff; sometimes staying put or reversing course is preferable. The idea that we have to keep doing the same thing and going in the same direction even after it has failed because "that's progress" and to refuse to recognize failure and reverse course because that's anti-progress is is insanity.
This ill-conceived "app" crapp on Windows is one such instance of that insanity. Can't MS just admit that "One UI to rule them all" was a bad idea (like Canonical did) and reverse course to a time when we had a desktop OS that was actually designed for the large majority of PCs running Windows? You know, with keyboards, mice, and non-touch, large monitors. You can just hear the strawmen being erected even now... "Why don't you just go back to DOS and its 640k barrier?"
Some proponents of "modern" seem to believe that the entire field of OS development can be reduced to something akin to a railroad track, with cavemen drawing on cave walls with rocks, and whatever their particular vision for the future may be on the other end, and if you don't support their vision of the future, you must then want what's at the other end of that track. It's both a strawman fallacy and a false dichotomy all rolled into one.
Of course, my example would be a strawman of its own if it were a distortion of what they say, but it's not... I've had that argument, repeatedly. The only thing that really varies is the particular relic of the past they choose.
This whole idea of "modern" and "progress" and all of that is kind of silly anyway; who is to decide what is modern? Why is a flat UI more modern than a skeuomorphic one? They're different, and we can evaluate them both on their merits, and when that's done, the flat UI loses (referencing that study again).
The reality of "modern" in the context that it is used here is that it just means something that's following the latest fashion trend, and fashion changes regularly for no logical reason except to sell more stuff. It doesn't make it better because it's newer... if it did, Windows 10 would be the best Windows ever in reality, not just in Microsoft slogan-making land.
It's all BS anyway. What MS *really* wants is to create a different and incompatible version of Windows inside Win32, one based on a closed wall garden that allows them to finally kill Win32 and have absolute control over the platform.
This way you can only sell through the Windows Store and MS gets an automatic 30% cut over any application being sold, as well as a say on what they allow to be published and what not. At the same time they want to turn Windows from a stand-alone OS into a service, and profit from that too. All at the expense of everyone else.
Yeah, right. If Windows became popular in the first place is because it was an OPEN platform. Perhaps MS should be reminded of Steve Ballmer's on-stage shouts: "developers, developers, developers!"
... "modernize" (US spelling, interestingly) ...
That is NOT "US spelling". British English allows the use of either 's' or 'z' in words which have been verbed by adding an "-ize" ending, and the OED prefers the 'z' spelling.
Verbing in this way follows Classical Greek, in which the suffix is spelt with the letter Zeta, which is conventionally transliterated to 'Z' in English.
Some words in English whose "-ise" ending is not formed in this way are properly spelt with an 's' (e.g. "revise", where the 's' is already present in the word "(re)vision"), Many writers prefer to use 's' spellings throughout, to save having to remember when 'z' is more appropriate; but that does NOT mean that the 'z' spelling is wrong for those words verbed, as "modernize" is, by adding "-ize" to a noun.
However, the word "modernize" comes, in this article, from Microsoft's Kevin Gallo, who seems to be an American. In that context the use of "US spelling" is far from interesting.
I think part of the issue is that Windows forms however great it was, was developed decades ago. It wasn't designed with hi resolution, designers or modern hardware. They have probably baked in hundreds of fixes which make things run slower than they could have. Many people complain why windows uses more resources and one part is that without rewriting windows forms all over and somehow making it compatible with all the business software written ever from Windows 95 onwards (over 20 years).
So the new system was designed to have a clean break yet still have backwards compatibility with the old system. They can not go fully with no backwards compatibility, just look at what happened to BB10, Palm Pre, Windows Phone OS. And they can't go the Apple iOS route of slowly yet surely killing off apps which aren't compatible.
Generally if you want to write windows forms it's much more difficult to write as XAML is much more easier to read, especially if you know how to read HTML .There's a reason why Windows form apps look mostly the same, and that's because it's really difficult to customize, but because it is the most compatible with Windows 7, we'll probably see it being used for a little longer.
Many older programmers and admins were just fine with the command line, but when GUIs became a thing many luddites hated it with a passion. And the hate was mainly because it was slower, which was true but it was much easier for people who weren't used to command line. Just because it doesn't match your tastes doesn't mean that other people liked it, I think if this matters so much to people, they should just move to Linux as it was designed for customisation. I know a few people new to computers who find Windows 8/8.1 far easier to use than Windows 7/10 since it is closer to how mobile phones work, but that could just be my sample.
Resizing, etc on forms was a big thing in 1996. That was solved a long time ago.
I dont need crap "non forms slick resizing, etc". If I wanted that, I would use one of the myriad js frameworks (and that is what I do), make web apps with a backend and charge by subscription or because that is the portal to our company services.
If we use .NET it is because it runs native on windows, if they break that, why bother? they seem keen on destroying their bread and butter in order to sell more azure.
"Many older programmers and admins were just fine with the command line, but when GUIs became a thing many luddites hated it with a passion."
Programmers and admins are luddites?
See, there's that thing I mentioned. If you're not in favor of whatever ($person) thinks is the future, you must be a caveman. Only two choices; progress toward one person's vision or the stone age (or somewhere along that timeline).
"I know a few people new to computers who find Windows 8/8.1 far easier to use than Windows 7/10 since it is closer to how mobile phones work,"
How are Windows 10 and 8.1 closer to how mobile phones work? Installing a new OS does not make your monitor turn into a touchscreen and make the mouse and keyboard vanish. It still has the same mode of operation, just with comically oversized controls (intended for a 5" screen) and a lot more drilling to find the option you want in various menus, since that's the norm for screens too small to include more than a small handful of options.
Not only that, but that's only in the half of Win 8 or 10 that looks like a phone (but isn't)... if you want to do anything useful (that is, use a win32 program), the entire UI changes to something that isn't much like what they're used to. That's not more like a phone at all... it's more inconsistent and confusing than a phone or a proper PC UI. An interface that looks like it should be touch-enabled (because it was designed for that) but isn't, with a jarring inconsistency between modes... that confused a lot of people who were adept with Windows 7 and their mobile phone.
"Programmers and admins are luddites?"
I didn't mean to generalise, but I do think as a developer sometimes things were better in command line, but since I was brought up on Windows 3.11 I knew many people using GUIs who otherwise couldn't use computers. I generally feel that Microsoft made a mistake pandering to the tastes of old users when being able to train a newer set of users would be a big deal. I got used to Windows 8 fairly quickly and actually preferred it to Windows 10 and Windows 7, because it was easier to layout items in 2 dimensions than in folder layout, compared to Windows 7 and below where you could have unlimited folders, it felt like it wasn't organised.
"How are Windows 10 and 8.1 closer to how mobile phones work?"
Windows 10 is not closer to how mobile phones work, but Windows 8/8.1 is because it behave based on swipes for right side bar, menu bars will bring up a fresh screen of icons in full screen mode. Yes I know that people who have really short memories felt that they cannot do two things at once such as remember what was previously on screen whilst searching for something in "Start" on Windows 8 but I felt that was a good thing, since it meant I wasn't constantly being distracted and also meant I had to think like I would in command line and actually remember things. In iOS, Android, Blackberry, Palm, Nintendo DS/3DS/Wii/Wii U/Switch, Nokia Symbian/Maemo, Sony Playstation, Xbox, and Android you always see a full screen of icons. Only OSX, OS/2, Windows and Linux have non full screen use, I would hope people could learn to use many different systems, but in real life most people like to have consistency among their system. Makes it easier when I have to teach my mum how to use Windows when they are already used to how iOS/Windows/Android works. As I said previously if you really wanted a custom environment Linux is much better for this.
I know i'm in the minority but that minority can grow to a majority if Microsoft had the balls to see it through. I still like going into Linux/Dos command line as I can do file manipulation much easier and faster.
I agree having an inconsistent look to apps is bad, but do you think Android was able to force older apps to use the new design aesthetics, nope they just said if you can't get up to a certain version, you just can't use the app. Microsoft doesn't have the same luxury as they aren't hip like Apple and Android and also seeing how all the other OS like Nokia, Blackberry and Palm not being backwards compatible basically meant the older user base had no reason to upgrade to the next phone since all their existing apps weren't compatible, regardless of how much better the newer operating system was compared to other systems. I am a self confessed luddite, I still use a Blackberry and Windows. But I also had used iOS, OSX, Linux, Maemo, Symbian, Nintendo, Playstation and Xbox operating system, and there seems to be a trend towards have more simpler interfaces.
"that confused a lot of people who were adept with Windows 7 and their mobile phone"
You're just being elitist by keeping people who are adept with the old system. The less time I need to train other people because the operating system gets in the way the better it is to focus on the task at hand, which is why most games run full screen and remove all that OS chrome. Windows 8 was removing more and more chrome but I guess people are happy to keep the status quo. Whether you like it or not more and more computers will be touch based, even toddler know how to work their way around a tablet but would require lots more training to learn how to operate traditional desktop environment.
Try writing a program with Windows forms and another with XAML, XAML is far more easier to read and is more flexible.
iOS, Android, Blackberry, Palm, Nintendo DS/3DS/Wii/Wii U/Switch, Nokia Symbian/Maemo, Sony Playstation, Xbox, and Android you always see a full screen of icons. Only OSX, OS/2, Windows and Linux have non full screen use
Mobiles have a small screen so can't usefully have a UI with windows (see first ever Windows Mobile up to version 6.5 as to why).
Devices with big-screen UIs need large simple UI and usually have simple input devices to control them so again, they don't have a UI with windows.
Notice that a mobile UI and a big-screen UI are different from each other. Stock Android runnning on a TV using an air mouse for input is a crappy experience.
Computer screens are neither small nor far away (Dougal) and have two input devices capable of finer control. You can have different apps side by side and switch between them and copy daya between them easily. TIFKAM doesn't allow you to do that, it's a step backwards.
This ill-conceived "app" crapp on Windows is one such instance of that insanity. Can't MS just admit that "One UI to rule them all" was a bad idea (like Canonical did) and reverse course to a time when we had a desktop OS that was actually designed for the large majority of PCs running Windows? You know, with keyboards, mice, and non-touch, large monitors. You can just hear the strawmen being erected even now... "Why don't you just go back to DOS and its 640k barrier?"
I shall attempt to answer this, in the reality of how Micro-shaft *REALLY* sees it.
a) We at Micro-shaft believe that the 'app' model is the future, and "the Store" is the only way you should be able to deploy them.
b) We at Micro-shaft continue to listen to our customers, who we *FEEL* are generally shifting to a more 'mobile' platform, and as such we must ensure that we are "jiggy with it" by making our platform look more like "mobile".
c) We at Micro-shaft don't give a RAT'S ASS how many PC makers are losing sales because our desktop operating system STINKS ON ICE. We want to leverage everyone into doing things OUR way using OUR model so we can have a perpetual revenue source. It's a slow process because a frog in hot water won't notice the temperature change until he's cooked.
d) We at Micro-shaft are selling touchy-feely computers to go with our touchy-feely attitudes, and if you don't buy a Surface, we have no sympathy for you. The other manufacturers can eat our scraps if they want to, but if you can't touch the screen, we don't give a crap about your computer, or YOU for that matter.
and of course if I must go back to an MS-DOS like thing, let's just shift over to Linux, shall we? BASH is a great command line interpreter, and it works best when you run THE REAL THING [or BSD] and not Micro-shaft's crap-clone version.
Agree, except that "modernize" happens to be the UK English spelling as well (it's the French who write "moderniser"). Cf. OED and Fowler(sub -ize): 'the suffix itself, whatever the element to which it is added, is in origin the Greek "-izein", Latin "izare; &, as the pronunciation is also with z, there is no reason why in English the special French spelling should be followed, in opposition to that which is at once etymological and phonetic.' (He goes on to instance some exceptions e.g. surprise, and remarks that the difficulty of remembering these is probably why there is confusion.)
I'm with Dan 55. Azure/cloud is just being pushed to make more money for Microsoft. On the UI front, the new apps seem like mostly a flop. This is after Microsoft threw WPF under the bus. .NET has also been somewhat of a fiasco with .NET Core. I can't say I'm a fan of what they've been doing with ASP.NET Core either. In general, I think they have realized that they are losing ground and need to support platforms other than Windows. As such, they have had to get .NET running on other platforms. Too bad they hadn't done this originally. They would be a lot better off now. Now they are playing catch up. It is pretty ridiculous how many different versions of .NET they have also that are incompatible with each other. I.e. Silverlight versus .NET Framework, etc. I always thought it was ridiculous that they didn't just have a unified base that worked everywhere. We will see if they ever get to that point. I will take .NET over Java any day, but, I think Microsoft has been screwing things up and making things more complicated that it should be. There are a lot of other really annoying things they have done as well. Such as the idiotic Office bar UI and eliminating menus. All in all, there has been a lot of flailing around. And then they waste time on cheesy things like augmented reality.
I've seen the term 'Modern' used in SUCH pejorative ways by the coolaid addicts and incorrigible Win-10-nic fanbois, it's almost like "the M word" now.
"Modernize" ==> get with the program you throwback, ex-hippy, old-fart, stick-in-the-mud, "get off my lawn" refuse-to-change'er, like there's something WRONG with YOU for NOT "loving it" with Win-10-nic.
"Thoroughly Modern Microsoft" needs to stop co-opting the English language for their own evil purposes.
/me is old enough to know what REAL hippies are/were, and not the pretenders who live 50 miles outside of Silly Valley along the left coast of the USA...
This post has been deleted by its author
Their strategy is to shift strategy continuously... how long this one will last? Until their next Great Idea? "Modernization" is mostly a synonym of "dumbing down" today. Oversimplified mobile UIs with too large widgets on a desktop too.
Moreover beware of making UI design and implementation too difficult with animations, materials, lights, whatever - most users needs relatively simple applications with a relatively simple UI able to display the data then need and act upon them. They don't need videogame styles applications difficult to interact with.
To keep on working on something everywhere I just need a simple VPN. I did that when the sun was shining and there were no clouds.
"Microsoft have one ?"
Yes - didn't you hear? It's "Mobile First, Cloud First". Mobile is a critical component of Microsoft's strategy. They have invested heavily in mobile and expect it to be a large and growing part of their revenue stream going forward, possibly even overtaking sales of Windows, Office, Windows Server, and SQL Server combined. It is foundational to Microsoft's future and they won't be able to survive long-term without it. </sarcasm>
"Microsoft is endeavouring to improve manageability and security by making it behave more like a mobile operating system, including Store-delivered applications"
Just how the hell SECURITY is being improved by making a PC more like a bloody mobile phone ?
And as for manageability, don't make me laugh. Just put the UI back to Windows 7 and a PC can be managed just fine.
Finally, keep your stupid Store. I will not have myself locked in on my PC. It's MINE, Microsoft, not yours.
"Finally, keep your stupid Store..."
The golden age of windows computing, you wanted an application, you searched for it, downloaded it (or possibly got the CD) installed it. It always worked for me, and probably several million others.
Then along comes Apple with their locked down mentality and their 'App Store'. They make lots of money. Microsoft see apple making money from their 'Store' and want some. So they they then trot out the 'manageability / security' stuff, as it's the perfect excuse for them to peddle their wares. Another tactic : remove useful stuff from the OS by default, but make it 'free' to download from the 'store'. I'm thinking Solitare, paint, that kinda thing. You then get to show off other paid for stuff, and get to try to up sell.
The Windows Store (or whatever the fuck it's called) is about envying apples billions, and wanting in. Nothing more.
It's also very strange that even though they've abandoned mobile, they're still peddling this "store" and "universal" crap upon us.
Just give us a decent desktop, that keeps out of my face and lets me do what I want, without telling anyone about what I'm doing - that's what everyone wants.
Until then, I can't use Windows.
"The Windows Store (or whatever the fuck it's called) is about envying apples billions, and wanting in. Nothing more."
I'm not convinced that there's nothing more. I do think that M$ has its share of true believers who honestly believe, misguided as they may be, that filtering all apps through "the company store" will somehow protect users from malicious apps. Why they believe that they can detect security flaws in third-party store apps when their own apps are riddled with security flaws is beyond me.
Sorry, but not in the eyes of Microsoft. You may have bought the hardware, and that parts yours, but you only have a license to run the software, which remains Microsoft's property. MS allow you to run their software on your hardware, and that's about it. If you agree to their EULA, you're then committing yourself to Microsoft's laws, restriction and control. If you don't want any of this, then don't run Windows on *your* hardware. There's plenty of other choice out there.
"If you agree to their EULA, you're then committing yourself to Microsoft's laws, restriction and control."
So if they wrote in there that they had the right to come to your house and take stuff from your house anytime they wanted, that would be okay too? I mean, you did agree to it, right?
The whole "license" thing is nonsense too. A license, in the non-governmental sense, is a particular negotiated exemption of copyright or patent law granted to a given person or entity. A license cannot impose any restrictions; once the person is granted the exemption to the copyright law, that's the extent of what a license can do. Anything beyond that is a contract, not a license. I signed a contract when I bought my house, and my car too.
The software companies have been picking and choosing from both baskets (contract and license) for far too long, and it's a shame that in the US at least, the government has chosen to pretty much let them and others like them (MPAA, RIAA, etc.,) do whatever they want. It doesn't mean it has any basis in law or in simple ideas of right and wrong; they get away with it because that's how it is in a corrupt system.
Still, it is what it is, and choosing to not use Windows 10 is a very good idea.
My personal favorite is how every Windows Store app automatically opens up inbound ports to everything. It is a complete joke. Check your firewall rules on Windows 10. You will see. Delete or disable them and they will comeback within a day. How this is considered acceptable is beyond me. It tells me that Microsoft isn't serious about security. Whatever happened to their whole Trusted Computing Initiative? Apparently, they modernized it away and gave up on it.
Lucky you!
Office 2016 has improved thankfully but isn't perfect. When I first used it earlier this year, Outlook crashed once every day or two, and Excel would also crash at least 2-3 times a week. With some updates, it is more reliable now, but it still crashes more regularly than Office 2010 ever did for me.
Re: Visual Studio.... Could you pause all the esoteric stuff that only 2% of users are even bothered about just long enough to fix the code editor formatting that EVERYONE uses? With all the vastly over complex formatting controls switched off, editing a Razor file (.cshtml) is like watching a ballet dance. Nothing stays where you put it, particularly if you have the audacity to copy and paste a bit of code from one section to the next. Basic stuff, you'd think. Easy enough for the world's biggest set of software experts, eh? So prove it. Fix it. THEN you can get on an sort the fluff out for the big boys.
--Thank you
(A Visual InterDev/Visual Studio user for the past 20 years)
Bit of a side step but they even managed to mess up minecraft by imposing the PC UI on the xbox version. It's bloody awkward and has fewer options and fetures than the orginal. It's amazing how MS manage to make or buy a good product and then proceed to shoot themselves in the foot with a cannon.
Lovely themes, all of which make some effort to add depth to the UI controls. However, I'm not sure that it's true to say this is reflected in W10 or many of the other Microsoft apps. They still seems to be stuck in the metro mindset of everything being flat 2D with no contrast, so it's impossible to know what's a UI control and what's not, which is the complete opposite of the "Fluent Design System" principles proposed here.
Yet another flip-flop reversal guaranteed to confuse users who have just started getting used to the last UI design "revolution".
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
