It seems like the risk of not collecting $500 from a bunch of developers is peanuts compared to the real threat MSFT now faces of people choosing to develop non Windows-specific apps which happen to still work on Windows. How many "apps" have you installed lately which are really just local servers with web front-ends? Qt-based stuff? Java SWT/Swing? What else? While many of these apps likely are built upon 3rd party components developed using Visual Studio (perhaps a free version), the makers of these apps almost always provide a Mac and Linux version. Microsoft has passed a dangerous tipping point where it is now like Apple in the early 90's -- fighting to attract developers who will provide killer, platform-specific apps. We all laughed as Ballmer screamed, "Developers, developers, developers!" However, he's all too well aware of the danger Microsoft faces of losing its dominance as a platform provider. I'd say "lost" as I believe they're already running on fumes, but they still control a huge portion of the desktop market. They should be worrying that developers won't develop anything at all which relies on their APIs and forgo the overly ambitious goal of buying developers' use of Metro. In a storm, any 'ol port will do.
True they still control a huge proportion of the desktop market, but most of that is business desktops. Apple's market share is heavily lopsided towards the high end consumer market. It's similar to their position with the iPhone. They have a minority market share, but its the most valuable part of the market.
For over a decade Microsoft has essentially been able to behave as if they have no competition, while Apple still has a culture of being lean, mean and hungry - plus they now have a hundred billion dollar war chest. I'm glad I'm not working for a competitor of theirs right now. At least
Microsoft does seem to be well aware of the problem, but the question is are they too big and slow to be able to react effectively? In mobile the answer was no. On the desktop they have the advantage of a real and significant market share dominance. It's going to be very interesting to see where things stand in 3 or 4 years time.
That's exactly what the motivation for the "Metro/WinRT" strategy for Windows 8 was in the first place, though - to get more developers writing directly for (new versions of) Windows rather than relying on third-party (or even first-party) runtime layers.
Same. Then I read the article and couldn't figure out who was crying. Had you not posted anything, I'd have spent the rest of my evening scratching my head on that one.
In before the hate train starts rolling full steam ahead right over Microsoft. This is a fantastic decision, they obviously really had no choice otherwise a lot of people would have abandoned Windows 8 development and Microsoft would have looked bad launching an OS that didn't have many supported applications.
As for Windows XP support, why would Microsoft add in support for an OS they don't really support any more? It has been 11 years, well almost 12 since XP came out and the fact people want to support the outdated OS is like asking Google to start supporting Internet Explorer 6 again.
As for Windows XP support, why would Microsoft
add in support for an OS they don't really support
any more?
Because Windows XP is stable, it works and a lot of companies and people are still using it.
If anything, Microsoft is to be blamed for not providing a compelling reason to upgrade. Windows Vista was awful, while Windows 7 is just a re-branded Vista with a little more polish applied. Which is why at home I still have Windows XP on my desktop.
It has been 11 years, well almost 12
Windows 7 was released at the end of 2009, while XP was released in Aug 2001. That's 8 years in which people had no real upgrade option. Can you really blame them if they are a little conservative?
the fact people want to support the outdated OS is like asking
Google to start supporting Internet Explorer 6 again
That's not a fair comparison, as downloading Firefox/Chrome is painless, is free, doesn't require a hardware upgrade, normal people can do it by themselves and they don't risk losing their data ... saying that upgrading Windows is painful would be an understatement.
I understand that Microsoft does not want to perpetuate Windows XP support but, for this single reason, I will not be able to upgrade to VS 2012. This means missing on the latest c++ features and also means maintaining two developement trees if I decide to develop a WinRt version.
Are they going to include 64bit support? The earlier versions of Visual Studio Express didn't which was a right royal pain for me. I produce a Python library and since Windows users don't have compilers have binary downloads available. To get 64 bit command line compiles I had to do an unholy wedging of VSE and the platform dev kit. (I'd much rather the Python developers used free software instead of forcing this stuff onto the rest of us.)
Oh yeah, they're all developing HTML5 applications that will run on Chrome and Firefox and maybe Internet Explorer. Why worry about the OS' look and feel?
ShabbyDoo|13 years ago
simonh|13 years ago
For over a decade Microsoft has essentially been able to behave as if they have no competition, while Apple still has a culture of being lean, mean and hungry - plus they now have a hundred billion dollar war chest. I'm glad I'm not working for a competitor of theirs right now. At least
Microsoft does seem to be well aware of the problem, but the question is are they too big and slow to be able to react effectively? In mobile the answer was no. On the desktop they have the advantage of a real and significant market share dominance. It's going to be very interesting to see where things stand in 3 or 4 years time.
bztzt|13 years ago
lunchbox|13 years ago
I read it as: The coder who built Microsoft Answers (http://answers.microsoft.com/) cried because of a new development kit.
Related:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_path_sentence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crash_blossom#In_headlines
danilocampos|13 years ago
glhaynes|13 years ago
f0r|13 years ago
DigitalSea|13 years ago
As for Windows XP support, why would Microsoft add in support for an OS they don't really support any more? It has been 11 years, well almost 12 since XP came out and the fact people want to support the outdated OS is like asking Google to start supporting Internet Explorer 6 again.
bad_user|13 years ago
If anything, Microsoft is to be blamed for not providing a compelling reason to upgrade. Windows Vista was awful, while Windows 7 is just a re-branded Vista with a little more polish applied. Which is why at home I still have Windows XP on my desktop.
Windows 7 was released at the end of 2009, while XP was released in Aug 2001. That's 8 years in which people had no real upgrade option. Can you really blame them if they are a little conservative? That's not a fair comparison, as downloading Firefox/Chrome is painless, is free, doesn't require a hardware upgrade, normal people can do it by themselves and they don't risk losing their data ... saying that upgrading Windows is painful would be an understatement.cfn|13 years ago
rogerbinns|13 years ago
If anyone is curious you can see the downloads and popularity at http://code.google.com/p/apsw/downloads/list
malkia|13 years ago
WSDK7.1 is VS2010, but at least latest IDE would be used.
unknown|13 years ago
[deleted]
RommeDeSerieux|13 years ago
smoyer|13 years ago
Oh yeah, they're all developing HTML5 applications that will run on Chrome and Firefox and maybe Internet Explorer. Why worry about the OS' look and feel?
nigelsampson|13 years ago
I'm glad Microsoft listened to people on this one.