104 replies to this topic

[Antheus]

Erm... wtf are you all going on about in this thread?

I'm being lectured on how I don't get Metro and how it's a perfect and complete replacement for my current desktop usage.

The arguements against Metro as being 'not suitable for IDE development' are utter rubbish because this is not what Metro is there for.

IDE is integral part of my daily routine. And since up to this day world existed without Metro, it means Metro wasn't needed until now. And not a single feature improves on current use, everything is at minimum an annoyance that I can no longer turn off.

for some people the Metro fullscreen version will be just fine as they only want to work on one document at a time.

Of course it will. For a large portion of users, Metro is almost everything they'll ever need.

But telling me that Metro is just fine for my needs and I just need to accept the new paradigm because it's the better new way of doing things, is pointless.

The Metro Start Screen defaults to your primary monitor, the secondary one shows the rest of the desktop.

It does.

But now, instead of hitting windows key + app_name, I need to hit Windows key and then move the mouse towards a nice square image of the app I need to run. It's not an improvement for desktop use. Alternative will be to keep icons on desktop, which is a compromise, but I still lose keyboard access and I need to minimize all open windows.

For desktop use, I (we) don't need metro, don't want metro and it doesn't improve on a single thing. Yet it's being forced down everyone's throat droning on and on how it's perfectly natural evolution and how it just takes some getting used to.


Like I said. Metro is fine for simple blog readers, for posting on twitter and watching your images as well as games. For what it was made.

Is that what your daily professional routine involves? If not, then how does Metro being forced into everything improve it? If something doesn't improve, then it's either an annoyance or useless.

Edited by Antheus, 28 May 2012 - 01:30 PM.

[way2lazy2care]

I'm being lectured on how I don't get Metro and how it's a perfect and complete replacement for my current desktop usage.

I NEVER said that.

[phantom]

Erm... wtf are you all going on about in this thread?

I'm being lectured on how I don't get Metro and how it's a perfect and complete replacement for my current desktop usage.

Show me.
Show me where someone said that.

What you are being "lectured" on is the massive load of FUD ladened BS which seems to spew out of every other post... your most recent ones have wandered off down some fictional route where Metro is The One True OS Experiance, the desk top doesn't exist and we are all living in a Metro Only World on the desktop which is about a million miles away from where we are now.

You are taking one thing (Windows 8 has Metro, MS want people to make Metro apps) and running it far far off into the distance to produce a massive strawman arguement using your conclusions based on things you've invented in your own head to re-enforce your world view that Metro is the worst thing ever (or whatever it is that is going on up there).

No one has claimed Windows 8 is prefect, no one has claimed that Metro Is The One True Way (not even MS) and yet somehow... we've ended up down that path...

Madness or stupidity?
I honestly can't figure out which right now...

[Antheus]

Show me.
Show me where someone said that.

Meh.

your most recent ones have wandered off down some fictional route where Metro is The One True OS Experiance, the desk top doesn't exist and we are all living in a Metro Only World on the desktop which is about a million miles away from where we are now.

Um...

Original topic was about changes to development tools and they strongly favor Metro. All in line with MS strategy and all that, nothing new.

I did claim that barriers to desktop development were raised, quite specifically, with a price tag on Visual Studio, coupled with changes to Windows SDK. Desktop isn't dead, nor is development impossible. But changes that were made do require some reconsideration on future directions. While WinSDK 2010 remains available, it's a generally bad strategy to base future development on previous versions of tools with no clear follow up.

Microsoft's history also shows that they will eliminate technologies and full technology stacks.

Likewise, when Oracle bought Sun, same thing happened. Anyone with any reliance on Sun-related technologies had to reconsider their choice. Not just obvious Java, even for stuff like VirtualBox, which introduced changes soon thereafter.

That would hardly be called madness or stupidity, pretending none of that matters however is. We might have little say about it, but it's still how things work.
----


The rest of the debate seemed to be going on about viability of Metro interface vs. current functionality for specific tasks.

As per topic of the thread, changes to Visual Studio affect desktop development.

That part was not about Metro being in any way bad, but about why raising the barrier on desktop development isn't a completely understandable choice at this point.


As for future, what I do need is to consider a "worst case" scenario - namely that building for desktop will come at a higher price. Not the end of the world, just a practical consideration. Like gas prices, where one might speculate on where they will go and if it is better to switch to public transport, along with everything that brings.

most recent ones have wandered off down some fictional route where Metro is The One True OS Experiance

I'm not sure where you're getting that, my position was that it's highly unlikely for that to ever happen.

That part of the debate started here with: "However, a lot of people are taking for granted that desktop applications shouldn't be the norm anymore in Windows 8. As painful as it will be moving to a new paradigm, it is a paradigm that will net in greater access for content creators to consumers, and more satisfied consumers because of a standardized experience across applications."
and
"I think time would be better spent arguing for support of necessary features in WinRT rather than arguing for further support of desktop apps."


That is where the "Metro is the One True OS" comes from - not from me.

[2DExtremeOwner]

It's that it's what's next is why people are worried. No one is complaining about having to learn something new - they're complaining about what the new thing is.
It isn't that WinRT is new; it's that WinRT means only Metro, which means only full screen phablet apps. Phones and tablets are great, but not everyone is writing software only for them. When I tried out the Windows 8 preview, I was excited - the idea of having the same core OS, with UIs optimised for different devices, is a brilliant one. But people telling me I should be running full-screen all the time, and the "desktop" should be lost? I'm not so sure...
Also see the ars article I linked - it means that MS no longer support free software development, and the Metro future is one completely locked down (like Apple IOS) and controlled by MS.

You can still make desktop apps...Metro is locked down. Windows 8 is not.

Yes some people have said they'll use Mac OS or Linux - I think that counts as part of the criticism of Windows 8!

Who cares? If you think that Mac OS or Linux will get anywhere near MS in OS users you need to wake up. Windows rules the PC. Apple rules the handhelds. If Vista didn't kill the Giant, nothing will. xD

By that logic, no one should complain about anything.

Depends on the situation. In this case, its pointless. Does Apple listen to people? Why aren't gas prices lower? Why isnt college free?

"We need something new, this is new, therefore we should do this".

Actually, yeah. Its Windows. Its new and runs better. Also, its Microsoft. You know, the guys who make Visual Studio? They also make video game consoles. And I'm thinking that Metro/WinRT or similar will be the new XNA for their next indie or pro stuff on the next Xbox. Probably future phones too and tablets and obviously the PC. So, why not?

What is so wrong about being first or at the start of a new "market" of an OS that have compatability with each other? And Metro apps will run on Intel/AMD and ARM CPU's.
I see wins!

How do you implement Eclipse (or any other IDE) in Metro? Better yet, who will do it, considering Java isn't supported. Or, if not a fan of Eclipse, use Visual Studio.

Java runs just fine on Windows 8. Its a freaking Virtual Machine. So, Eclipse should have no problems. I ran Netbeans and Java games. In Metro? Not sure, its a Desktop app, just like you have used it all this time.

How do I add time tracker, which is a sidebar widget to always show up.
I cannot put Skype in the background, since I need to watch it to see the user feedback and/or screen cap they are providing.
Email contains various details, passwords and other correspondence related to the problem, I need to have access to it, switching left and right isn't possible.
Checklist is a list that you follow, step-by-step, it needs to be present next to everything else. Current system is browser-based.
CRM is another list which needs to be present, it contains cross-references of the person I'm dealing with, along with their account information, runs in second browser window.

If it works on Windows 7 it will or can work on Windows 8.

Once you install and run Windows 8, you'll see why the above doesn't work. Metro is the square things on the startup. Desktop is the thing with taskbar at bottom. Arguments here are about why pushing Metro as the only thing doesn't come even close to a replacement for desktop.

I have no clue what you are saying here...the Desktop will be there and so will Metro. What is the argument here? Its the same Windows 7 but better and with a new optional tablet style interface, <em>Optional!</em>.

If Windows 8 works for you, fine. This isn't about theoretical doability - we could as well be using paper mail - it's about how unusable new interface is for tasks and applications which are the norm.

Don't freaking use Metro!? Press that "Windows" Key and use the Desktop like you have used your whole life? Sheesh, Windows 8 is just Windows 7 with an optional interface. If you dislike Windows 8, you hate Windows 7.

People like you and me, are why MS made the Metro style interface optional. Why don't I have a problem with it and you do? Are you sure you tried Windows 8? Cause its exactly the same thing, 93.33% of the time.

While WinSDK 2010 remains available, it's a generally bad strategy to base future development on previous versions of tools with no clear follow up.

How long do you think Windows 8 will last? 3 or 4 years? maybe 5? Well, that's your timeline. Oh wait...we still support Windows XP!? Ahh, you got atleast 10 years to do your work. You'll be fine Antheus.

[mdwh]

What iOS/OSX still offer is ability to develop non-iOS/non-appstore applications considerably cheaper ($99 license covers everything), then you're free to distribute anything you want, iOS or desktop.

Just as a side point, surely you don't even need a license to do anything, if it's for non-IOS (i.e., OS X), and not through their download site? (I.e., like every other operating system that isn't Windows.) Or did Apple change that?

It would be nice if they supported desktop apps using only specific parts of the API in the market, but do you really need more than 2 applications per monitor? I think the most apps I ever have viewable on my 2 monitors is 3, maybe 4. After that it gets too cluttered imo.

Still more than 1, then.

To add to Antheus's usability examples:

Someone might be writing an essay or report, whilst looking at information on Wikipedia. People might take a photo, want to crop it in an editor, then send it to Facebook. That's not to say there aren't other ways to do multitasking - my last example is an obvious smartphone example, which smartphones manage to do. But you do need to think about it, you can't just say "Oh, people only use one app at a time".

Similarly there are cases where people might want to quickly glance at things that run all the time - see who's online with your IM app, or reading the headlines on the news in an app that shows them. Or consider the recent trend in desktop OSs for "widgets" that display things all the time.

I'd also add that it's not the simpler apps that should be using Metro. I mean, we seem to have this idea that complex apps may still need windowed mode, but a simply phone-like app should be using the Metro tablet interface. But I would say the opposite - complex apps that you spend a lot of time working in need the space (e.g., a 3D renderer), and are more likely to be used on their own, where as a simple app like a calculator or notepad doesn't, and is more likely to be something you use quickly and briefly whilst working with other apps.

- Run these on second or third screen switching between them as necessary just like you would do right now.

Can I clarify - so you're saying running full screen is okay, because you have multiple monitors?

If people need to resort to buying extra monitors, then I think that kind of proves the point that people want to see multiple apps at once. What about people who can't afford that, or don't have the space, or are working on laptops (which could be a 17" HD screen, before you say that laptops are too small anyway - although I still sometimes use windowing on my 10" Samsng netbook)?

If you are minimizing, maximizing, resizing, and refocussing windows you can do all that with metro just fine. You can have metro running in one window and desktop in another. You can run metro and desktop in the same window simultaneously. You can switch between metro and desktop practically instantly on a single monitor if you don't want them sharing space.

I think Windows 8 as implemented is great. I'm talking about the idea that we should all move to Metro and give up on "desktop" - is that what you meant when you talked about moving to a new paradigm, or did we misunderstand you?

Metro has better support for multiple monitors than standard windows starting with the June update to the release preview. I don't understand why Metro is useless for multiple monitors when it has more functionality with multiple monitors than Windows 7.

I think you're missing his point. He's criticising the argument of "Most people don't need non-full-screen apps, therefore it's okay not to have them at all". If that isn't your argument, then can you clarify what is?

Then I'll argue for support of creating non-full screen apps in WinRT

WinRT supports this. WinRT != Metro.

Well that's good then - but other posters have said the opposite. Can anyone provide a link/reference to state for sure? (I mean, I think it is the case that VS Express 11 is Metro only, but I am still curious if the new WinRT API allows non-Metro "desktop" apps.)

@phantom: The fact that not everything is suited to Metro is exactly the point being made by myself and others. We're disagreeing with this idea that Metro should be used for everything - that we should code for it, that it's the new paradigm, that desktop is deprecated etc. I know that Windows 8 isn't like that, and I know that's not necessarily what MS want (it's hard to know what they want). And if no one is saying that, I guess they should clarify what they really did mean

About the only annoying thing right now (well, in the preview version anyway) is that hitting start kills the whole primary monitor - it would be nice if you could set it to open on one side by default much like how you can drag an app to the side of the primary monitor and have it sit there while you use a standard desktop app on the rest.

Yes, it would be nice if something wasn't necessarily full screen only, when you didn't need that That's just what people have been saying.

You can still make desktop apps...Metro is locked down. Windows 8 is not.

See above - can we get clarification if the WinRT API supports both Metro and "desktop"?

Who cares? If you think that Mac OS or Linux will get anywhere near MS in OS users you need to wake up. Windows rules the PC. Apple rules the handhelds. If Vista didn't kill the Giant, nothing will. xD

Oh, I do agree (well, except as a side point to say that Android rules on handhelds ... at least I think, maybe things stack up differently if Ipod Touches and Ipads are lumped in with the smartphones). But anyhow, doesn't that go against your first point? Going to alternative systems like OS X or Linux isn't very helpful, if those systems are small.

"We need something new, this is new, therefore we should do this".

Actually, yeah. Its Windows. Its new and runs better. Also, its Microsoft. You know, the guys who make Visual Studio? They also make video game consoles. And I'm thinking that Metro/WinRT or similar will be the new XNA for their next indie or pro stuff on the next Xbox. Probably future phones too and tablets and obviously the PC. So, why not?

What is so wrong about being first or at the start of a new "market" of an OS that have compatability with each other? And Metro apps will run on Intel/AMD and ARM CPU's.

I wasn't talking about Windows 8. The issue is only doing Metro - being "new" doesn't mean it's good for every purpose.

I have no clue what you are saying here...the Desktop will be there and so will Metro. What is the argument here? Its the same Windows 7 but better and with a new optional tablet style interface, <em>Optional!</em>.

As it should be! No one is arguing against Windows 8 as it's implemented. The argument is against those people saying "desktop" applications shouldn't be the norm anymore, and we should embrace the "new paradigm".

Edited by mdwh, 29 May 2012 - 10:03 AM.

[way2lazy2care]

Still more than 1, then.

To add to Antheus's usability examples:

Someone might be writing an essay or report, whilst looking at information on Wikipedia. People might take a photo, want to crop it in an editor, then send it to Facebook. That's not to say there aren't other ways to do multitasking - my last example is an obvious smartphone example, which smartphones manage to do. But you do need to think about it, you can't just say "Oh, people only use one app at a time".

You can have 2 metro apps on screen at once. I don't know how it will translate to 2+ monitors yet (2 apps per screen?), but I'd imagine that would continue to be the case.

I think Windows 8 as implemented is great. I'm talking about the idea that we should all move to Metro and give up on "desktop" - is that what you meant when you talked about moving to a new paradigm, or did we misunderstand you?

I meant the paradigm shift from a completely open software environment to a sand-boxed one paired with a single point of contact software store will result in a better quality of life for consumers and will result in more sales for us, developers. There are some UI and API problems, but on the whole the direction they are shifting in benefits all users of the platform; it's not nearly the clusterfuck it's made out to be.

My point was just that switching will be difficult, but it will result in a lot of significant gains for consumers and developers alike that more than offset the differences. I didn't mean to imply that Metro>Desktop. The amount of negativity towards Metro/winRT/VS express is disproportionate to the reality.

edit:

As it should be! No one is arguing against Windows 8 as it's implemented. The argument is against those people saying "desktop" applications shouldn't be the norm anymore, and we should embrace the "new paradigm".

I don't think desktop applications should be the norm. They should still be used, but the vast majority of applications can be done well inside metro limitations. The only limitations I'm not a huge fan of atm are the background process restrictions, but those seem to be in a very liquid state.

If I were to put a split on it, I'd say it should be something like a 70/30 split in favor of metro vs desktop apps. The 30% would probably end up being productivity/development apps.

Edited by way2lazy2care, 29 May 2012 - 11:39 AM.

[Antheus]

I meant the paradigm shift from a completely open software environment to a sand-boxed one paired with a single point of contact software store will result in a better quality of life for consumers and will result in more sales for us, developers. There are some UI and API problems, but on the whole the direction they are shifting in benefits all users of the platform; it's not nearly the clusterfuck it's made out to be.

My point was just that switching will be difficult, but it will result in a lot of significant gains for consumers and developers alike that more than offset the differences. I didn't mean to imply that Metro>Desktop. The amount of negativity towards Metro/winRT/VS express is disproportionate to the reality.

Does Microsoft provide you with these canned answers or do you write them on your own? Are you full-time or just an evangelist who was bought with a free phone?

Because all your talk here is vaxing poetic about "quality of life for consumers", "single point of contact", "shifting benefits" - this is by the book PR talk.


As for better revenue - numbers disagree. Unless you have an established brand, such as Angry Birds (in which case you already received a paycheck), breaking into established mobile platforms as an indie is next to impossible without serious investment. So for indies or wannabe devs, it's worse, since there is much less emphasis on internet and viral marketing.

[way2lazy2care]

Does Microsoft provide you with these canned answers or do you write them on your own? Are you full-time or just an evangelist who was bought with a free phone?

Because all your talk here is vaxing poetic about "quality of life for consumers", "single point of contact", "shifting benefits" - this is by the book PR talk.

I have no affiliation with them whatsoever. All I know is that I'm a consumer and a developer, and I am well aware of the net benefit I will get being both of them.

As for better revenue - numbers disagree. Unless you have an established brand, such as Angry Birds (in which case you already received a paycheck), breaking into established mobile platforms as an indie is next to impossible without serious investment. So for indies or wannabe devs, it's worse, since there is much less emphasis on internet and viral marketing.

Yea. And unless you deal through a publisher you're locked to one platform (PC) as an indie developer, and even then if you plan on actually selling anything you'll probably have to go through Steam or try to find a physical distributor. Steam [probably] has better revenue for the average developer, but they also don't publish everything that gets submitted. Steam has 1,800 games, iOs has over 30,000; clearly it takes tons of investment.

To imply that you don't need serious investment without a single point of contact store, which I would consider Steam to be honestly, is foolish

[2DExtremeOwner]

Oh, I do agree (well, except as a side point to say that Android rules on handhelds ... at least I think, maybe things stack up differently if Ipod Touches and Ipads are lumped in with the smartphones). But anyhow, doesn't that go against your first point? Going to alternative systems like OS X or Linux isn't very helpful, if those systems are small.

To clarify myself, when I said that iOS rules the handheld, I ment in application sells. But yes, Android, I think, has more of a market.
---
I think the main question here, really, is if WinRT can be used to make Desktop apps. What I remember from the BUILD conference, which is very little, No. I don't think they were clear about that. You can use WinRT to make Metro apps with C++,C#, JavaScript, etc... Take this with a grain of salt. But then again, why wouldn't you be able to? They are just API's and DirectX11 is there for Desktop apps. WinRT runs on top of DX11 also.

All I care about is HTML5, JavaScript and Java. And Java runs on Windows 8 and the other browsers work on Windows 8. I mainly used the Desktop interface, but the Metro interface was just fine and simple. And everything ran better. It booted up in like 10 seconds on my 5 year old laptop. I want Windows 8 more than when I went from Vista to Windows 7! The only reason that I'm back on Win7 is because I wanted to try some games and they werent working on Win8. They installed, updated but did not run. So I switched back.

Yea. And unless you deal through a publisher you're locked to one platform (PC) as an indie developer, and even then if you plan on actually selling anything you'll probably have to go through Steam or try to find a physical distributor. Steam [probably] has better revenue for the average developer, but they also don't publish everything that gets submitted. Steam has 1,800 games, iOs has over 30,000; clearly it takes tons of investment.

To imply that you don't need serious investment without a single point of contact store, which I would consider Steam to be honestly, is foolish

Unless you are like the one in a million developer who makes a one in a million game that becomes popular by word of mouth. But, that's one in a million or two or three...or way more. And even then, you probably have to spend quite a bit! way2lazy2care just made one of the most realistic comments in the whole thread!

[mdwh]

You can have 2 metro apps on screen at once. I don't know how it will translate to 2+ monitors yet (2 apps per screen?), but I'd imagine that would continue to be the case.

So that's only 2, only side by side, and as I say, buying multiple monitors to view more windows is a terrible workaround Plus that's no longer "full screen" - I mean, if the answer is that Metro will ultimately be updated so that it supports multiple windows, then great - that's proving the point that we should have that option. Note, I'm not so much arguing against Windows 8, I'm arguing against this idea that full screen should be the norm. If Metro is updated to ultimately offer what the "desktop" API can do with windows, then great.

I meant the paradigm shift from a completely open software environment to a sand-boxed one paired with a single point of contact software store will result in a better quality of life for consumers and will result in more sales for us, developers. There are some UI and API problems, but on the whole the direction they are shifting in benefits all users of the platform; it's not nearly the clusterfuck it's made out to be.

My point was just that switching will be difficult, but it will result in a lot of significant gains for consumers and developers alike that more than offset the differences. I didn't mean to imply that Metro>Desktop. The amount of negativity towards Metro/winRT/VS express is disproportionate to the reality.

Well okay, though I still disagree on that issue too - probably more so.

You can have all the advantages of "centralised" download sites whilst still being open and not giving a monopoly to the OS creator - as shown by Android, Nokia (S40/Symbian/Meego), Linux, OS X ... hell, AmigaOS had one 15 years ago. I think it's Windows that stands out as the only platform that doesn't really have a standard download place, leaving us to the mercy of places like download.com filling the void.

Granting a monopoly to MS on software distribution will be better for everyone? I'm sure they'd love you to believe it. It'll be great for MS, with the 30% cut, and the annual $99 on top.

Some people might be able to get better sales. Other people won't - either they're already selling through existing channels (including online) fine, or you'll just be lost in the noise. Then there are free/open source developers who are quite happy distributing software, with free hosting options that don't cost $99 a year. My experience has been as Antheus suggests. It's near impossible to get noticed on Google Play unless you are doing your own marketing, in which case it's no better than what you could do on Windows already. I find I get better downloads for Windows just through the old fashioned web page method, than through Google's Play - it's past the point where you could get tonnes of exposure simply by putting something on there. (Interestingly, Nokia Store is the one place I get hundreds or thousands of downloads every day, just by putting something there with zero marketing - I guess because it seems to been ignored by a lot of the bandwagon jumpers; but in general, "app stores'" gold rushes are something you'll only get near the start.) Of course, it's very hard for indies to make money on Windows now - I'm just not convinced forcing them to only release through MS (as opposed to it being an additional option) will mean things are better for developers, apart from a possible short term "gold rush" period for a lucky few.

And indeed, just consider the basic logic. At the moment, an app on Windows competes with large amounts of competition, making it hard to succeed. If I'm an early adopter on Metro and get on the MS Store, and I'm lucky, I might get lots of success. But long term, you're still going to be one app on Windows with large amounts of competition - that's true whether you stick them on different websites, or put them all on the same one.

Why would an MS download site be any different to download.com, where the already well known apps get downloaded vast amounts of times (millions a week), but there's no coverage for new unknown software (in my experience, I get less than from my own website)?

Also of interest: http://www.technolog...business/40319/

For users, a download site is useful if you're looking for a type of software but aren't sure which. OTOH, if you're at a website and what to download something, it's an awful lot easier to go "click", then have to follow the link to the special OS download site. Centralised download sites should be offered in addition (like they are on most platforms), not locked down so it's the only place you can get software from.

Also, even if I do want to browse for software, I find Google Play increasingly frustrating, due to all the secret ad-ware there (nothing wrong with people wanting to make money, but be upfront about it - it's annoying for users, and annoying also for developers that don't put ads in their applications). So with things like that, it's not really clear that hunting through 10 different apps on Google Play is better than just typing the name of a type of software on Google, and following the top hits. With people on Windows already so used to the latter, would you rush to a new MS store?

If I were to put a split on it, I'd say it should be something like a 70/30 split in favor of metro vs desktop apps. The 30% would probably end up being productivity/development apps.

As I say, I'm more likely to be wanting productivity run full screen, than some simple app. And what if I want to run the simple app in the 70% at the same time?

I would hope that most types of applications end up with both kinds, so users can choose, which would be fine.

But I still wonder - it's already possible today to write full screen apps in Windows, so why aren't people doing that? It seems to be only game developers who have decided that's better (and even they are often written with the option to run in a window).

[liquidAir]

You could stick with Visual Studio 2010. Sure it doesn't have the latest and greatest futures, but I believe it's still an option. I really don't subscribe to the whole Windows 8 Metro philosophy on desktop PCs and laptops, but I guess I'll just have to upgrade sometime.

[2DExtremeOwner]

You can have all the advantages of "centralised" download sites whilst still being open and not giving a monopoly to the OS creator - as shown by Android, Nokia (S40/Symbian/Meego), Linux, OS X ... hell, AmigaOS had one 15 years ago. I think it's Windows that stands out as the only platform that doesn't really have a standard download place, leaving us to the mercy of places like download.com filling the void.

Granting a monopoly to MS on software distribution will be better for everyone? I'm sure they'd love you to believe it. It'll be great for MS, with the 30% cut, and the annual $99 on top.

So you are saying that now that Microsoft has created a better reach for developers and easier/better tools that can and will probably let us write a "Metro" game or application for PC's, Laptops, Tablets and maybe Phones and Consoles, should not ask for money?

You also just answered that yourself, "I think it's Windows that stands out as the only platform that doesn't really have a standard download place, leaving us to the mercy of places like download.com filling the void.". So, isn't this Metro developer subscription model a benefit? One more way to be seen, no? You are hating on it simply because its Microsoft. Apple, charges also AND you "need" to use their hardware to develop for them! If things have not changed.

"The iOS Developer Program annual fee is $99, and in local currency where available. The iOS Developer Enterprise Program annual fee is $299, and in local currency where available. The iOS Developer University Program is free." And don't forget to add the 30% cut for them for all your sells too.

Oh wait...

"The Mac Developer Program annual fee is $99, and in local currency where available."

And to develop on Android there is a one time fee, which is or was like $25.

And also, all "app stores" take a cut of your sales. Amazon, Facebook, Steam, Google, iTunes and now finally, Windows will. What about the other ones like Intels app store? And the rest that I'm not even aware off? I'm sure they do.

But because its Microsoft, you find it "wrong". The last big company to incorporate it.

Don't do windows apps, simple. You loose like 80+% of the whole PC/Laptop market, but who cares, right?

Or you can just do the usual desktop app and ignore the "Stores" and "MetroStuff" and use the current tech, API's and Platform that will be still supported for the next 10 years like Diablo 3, WoW and Minecraft have been doing, heard does games sold alot. >.>

You could stick with Visual Studio 2010. Sure it doesn't have the latest and greatest futures, but I believe it's still an option. I really don't subscribe to the whole Windows 8 Metro philosophy on desktop PCs and laptops, but I guess I'll just have to upgrade sometime.

Visual Studio 2010 will last as long as Windows 7. Considering that we still support Windows XP, that's about 10 years.*

*And if you add Windows 8 to the math, since it can run Windows 7 Applications, that may well be 12-14 years of Visual Studio 2010 usefulness.

[phantom]

Granting a monopoly to MS on software distribution will be better for everyone? I'm sure they'd love you to believe it. It'll be great for MS, with the 30% cut, and the annual $99 on top.

No, the MS Store will have a monopoly on Metro apps; just like the App Store has one on iOS and the Play store does on Android.

You can continue to develop and sell your non-Metro apps via other means, no one is stopping you there but they won't be getting on a tablet any time soon much like if you don't push your app via the App Store on iOS you won't be getting on an iOS device any time soon.

[Alpha_ProgDes]

You could stick with Visual Studio 2010. Sure it doesn't have the latest and greatest futures, but I believe it's still an option. I really don't subscribe to the whole Windows 8 Metro philosophy on desktop PCs and laptops, but I guess I'll just have to upgrade sometime.

Offtopic: Long time no see, man! (note: you may not remember who i am, lol)

[BeanDog]

But now, instead of hitting windows key + app_name, I need to hit Windows key and then move the mouse towards a nice square image of the app I need to run. It's not an improvement for desktop use

I installed the Win8 preview on a VM, and if I remember correctly, I could just hit the windows key and start typing, and it found my apps just fine. There's just not a blank white input box with a blinking cursor, that's all.

PS I absolutely love this thread :-D

[mdwh]

So you are saying that now that Microsoft has created a better reach for developers and easier/better tools that can and will probably let us write a "Metro" game or application for PC's, Laptops, Tablets and maybe Phones and Consoles, should not ask for money?

You also just answered that yourself, "I think it's Windows that stands out as the only platform that doesn't really have a standard download place, leaving us to the mercy of places like download.com filling the void.". So, isn't this Metro developer subscription model a benefit? One more way to be seen, no? You are hating on it simply because its Microsoft. Apple, charges also AND you "need" to use their hardware to develop for them! If things have not changed.

I haven't expressed hatred here. I dislike and have criticised Apple's IOS model too, and would worry for it to become the norm. So it's not true that I'm singling out MS.

And no I'm not saying "that Microsoft has created a better reach for developers", much of my last post, in agreement with Antheus, was disputing this idea. Pay money for the privilege of writing software?


I have no problem with a standard download place, nor do I have any problem with a paid for one that people can optionally use.

"The Mac Developer Program annual fee is $99, and in local currency where available."

And to develop on Android there is a one time fee, which is or was like $25.

And also, all "app stores" take a cut of your sales. Amazon, Facebook, Steam, Google, iTunes and now finally, Windows will. What about the other ones like Intels app store? And the rest that I'm not even aware off? I'm sure they do.

Not relevant - with all those, you are free to distribute where you like. You don't have to pay anything to develop for a device that you own. You don't have to pay a penny to distribute free apps for Windows. The issue is also more control than cost. And Intel's AppUp Centre? I took one look at that, wasn't convinced that the traffic would be worth the effort of even uploading, and chose not to use it.

Individuals shouldn't have to pay money to write software for free. Companies with their own established distribution methods shouldn't be required to go through one company. 30% cut may or may not be a good buy - but the choice of distribution should be up to those in the market, not enforced by technology as a monopoly. And one company shouldn't get to decide what software I as a user can run on my device.

(And to be honest, there is a matter of scale - if VS full version only cost $25, people would be far less bothered I imagine. Android is also free itself, so the $25 could be seen as a charge for a developer version, which is less than the normal cost of Windows. But that's irrelevant anyway, since it's not true you have to pay that to develop for an Android device, it's just that most people choose to. If MS opened a Metro download site, with a one off cost for $25, that wasn't required and enforced by the hardware, you wouldn't get any criticism from me.)

But because its Microsoft, you find it "wrong". The last big company to incorporate it.

The only company currently with this model is Apple, and even then only for IOS. (Possibly it's true for consoles too, but it's hardly true that MS are the "last big" company to do this, when most download sites don't exert this kind of control at all; and I don't want general purpose software distribution to be like it is for games consoles.) I criticise Apple with IOS far more than MS, so it's a straw man to say I only criticise becaue it's MS.

Or you can just do the usual desktop app and ignore the "Stores" and "MetroStuff" and use the current tech, API's and Platform that will be still supported for the next 10 years like Diablo 3, WoW and Minecraft have been doing, heard does games sold alot. >.>

Exactly, that's my point, that non-Metro is still important. I still use "stores", but I can choose to distribute where I like.

Granting a monopoly to MS on software distribution will be better for everyone? I'm sure they'd love you to believe it. It'll be great for MS, with the 30% cut, and the annual $99 on top.

No, the MS Store will have a monopoly on Metro apps; just like the App Store has one on iOS and the Play store does on Android.

Android software doesn't have to be distributed through Google Play (Google have a strong advantage, but I have no problem with that - if say download.com had become the de facto place to distribute software, then good luck to them. The point is that the monopoly of the download sites for Apple IOS - and MS Metro - is enforced by the hardware, and they can get away with doing what they like.)

True that MS is only doing this for Metro, but then that's on topic for the VS 11 Express only supporting Metro. As the Ars article says, free development on Windows from MS is no longer possible. By all means argue that as a good thing if you like.

Also I was referring to way2lazy2care's paradigm shift - I was curious if he thought it would be a good thing if done for all Windows software? And if not, why is there a difference?

You can continue to develop and sell your non-Metro apps via other means, no one is stopping you there but they won't be getting on a tablet any time soon

Yes that is what people's criticisms are. "But Officer, Apple are speeding too" not being much of a defence.

You can get software onto an x86 tablet fine, and it can be optimised for touchscreen UI and run fullscreen, which I have already done for my games, but it won't behave as a Metro application, meaning it won't integrate properly (e.g., all of the appliations using this method will appear lumped onto the "desktop" screen, rather than having their own screen). Which is bad for user experience. So I wonder if that's going to harm the experience of Windows on tablets.

And before anyone misunderstands, I love the idea of what Windows 8 is doing. That's all the more reason I worry about these ideas flying around about "most things should be Metro full screen" or "Let's drop non-Metro from VS Express" or "MS having an enforced-by-technology monopoly on software distribution for Metro is fine; Apple do it too".

(Indeed, one of the points I've made for years is that, whilst I can choose not to use IOS, them doing it will make it easier for MS to get away with it, and look, people here explicitly making that very argument.)

@BeanDog : Yes, the type-from-start-menu works fine in Windows 8, and is something I love since Windows 7 (or Vista?). And I do like the start menu on Windows 8 - I think this is something that works well on both desktops/laptops and tablets/phones, since you can both click a tile, and type. And here, taking up the full screen seems reasonable to me.

Edited by mdwh, 31 May 2012 - 09:06 AM.

[Antheus]

if VS full version only cost $25, people would be far less bothered I imagine.

It wouldn't change if it were 1 cent ir free.

It's not the price - it's the extra hurdle and restrictions put on by licensing.

Linux is growing vastly on servers because you can make 1, 2, 3 or 300 copies as needed. Or you can keep multiple disk images. Or you can put it into repository. Or put it on web for download. But you never, ever need to worry about licensing.

The moment you need to maintain a license, even if that license is free, costs go up. It immediately also excludes such software from many uses that require either budget or legal approval. Anyone who has not had to deal with these kind of environments will not understand why it's a hassle.

Requiring a license also immediately puts off majority of occasional contributors - how often did you go to a site that wanted you to create account only to close it because you didn't want to be bothered remembering and maintaining another account?

Which is why Unreal Engine is free download - do with it what you want, but one needs to pay when revenue exceeds certain amount. Same thing here - as long as Windows SDK (again, not Visual Studio - VS is UI and fluff, the important stuff are the compiler, linker and headers), development was accessible.

This single change eliminates desktop development as viable option and also changes Microsoft's strategic position. Obviously, if you're a Microsoft shop, it doesn't change anything.


Android fees: Android SDK is freely accessible - the fee is for publishing. All tools used are open as well.
Apple - it's unix, uses GCC or clang, the license is again XCode and publishing. Huge hurdle, which isn't even technical however, is requirement to run on Apple hardware only.
Microsoft - the WinAPI uses proprietary language extensions and only builds fully with Microsoft's compiler. By requiring licensing, it's effectively a no-go.

Free is not about price, but about accessibility.

Does any of this matter? This debate exists because 5 years ago Apple built iOS, the AppStore and iPhone - all using nothing but open technologies, which was so disruptive that all tech giants panicked. They could have went with better compilers (at the time their toolchain was vastly inferior to everything else, free or not), what mattered was that they weren't restricted by arbitrary legal conditions.

And yet money changes hands faster than ever. Understand it or not (yet), the change made here is drastic for Microsoft, which has, regardless of using proprietary tech, always been the most open development environment.


But yes, you'll still be able to develop free apps for Windows and you'll even get a Metro store and make a dime or two from it. <sarcasm>Because all the programming, consumer or other is about appstores and competing who can publish more fart apps than others and use social viral channels to monetize it the most. Not writing a social fart app? Go away then, you're legacy.</sarcasm> Tags added to avoid someone taking things literally.


As a side note, considering the other Diablo 3 thread - it's incredibly ironic that anyone is shocked or annoyed about what D3 is or why it's like that. People have explained exactly what D3 will be like years ago, once the details became known. But everyone said: It's Blizzard, they'll do things right... It's same thing here. Just because some change doesn't affect you right now, or it doesn't seem like a big deal, doesn't mean it actually is either of those.

So I can only hope that everyone who advocates the changes discussed here also expressed complete disagreement in other thread, namely that D3 is the best future direction of gaming and that it has delivered more than any other game this year, clearly dictating the future that everyone simply must follow or become obsolete.

Edited by Antheus, 31 May 2012 - 03:29 PM.

[way2lazy2care]

Which is why Unreal Engine is free download - do with it what you want, but one needs to pay when revenue exceeds certain amount. Same thing here - as long as Windows SDK (again, not Visual Studio - VS is UI and fluff, the important stuff are the compiler, linker and headers), development was accessible.

Have you looked at the UDK commercial license terms? edit: They aren't any better than the VS license or revenue sharing model for metro apps.

If you are using UDK internally within your business and the application created using UDK is not distributed to a third party (i.e., someone who is not your employee or subcontractor), you are required to pay Epic an annual license fee of US$2,500 per installed UDK developer seat per year. This license fee only applies to UDK seats used for development; no license fee is required for hardware where only the resulting applications are installed.
If you create a games or commercial applications using UDK for sale or distribution to an end-user or client, or if you are providing services in connection with a UDK based game or application, the per-seat option does not apply. Instead the license terms for this arrangement are US $99 up-front, and a 0% royalty on you or your company's first US$50,000 in UDK related revenue from all your UDK based games or commercial applications, and a 25% royalty on UDK related revenue from all your UDK based games or commercial applications above US$50,000. UDK related revenue includes, but is not limited to, monies earned from: sales, services, training, advertisements, sponsorships, endorsements, memberships, subscription fees, in-game transactions, rentals and pay-to-play. You or your company will only need one commercial license to cover all the UDK based games or commercial applications you develop.
Here are some examples:

But yes, you'll still be able to develop free apps for Windows and you'll even get a Metro store and make a dime or two from it. <sarcasm>Because all the programming, consumer or other is about appstores and competing who can publish more fart apps than others and use social viral channels to monetize it the most. Not writing a social fart app? Go away then, you're legacy.</sarcasm> Tags added to avoid someone taking things literally.

Despite my asking a couple of times, you have yet to give a reason WinRT or Metro will block you from making a meaningful application.

Edited by way2lazy2care, 31 May 2012 - 03:40 PM.

[Antheus]

Have you looked at the UDK commercial license terms?

Here, the download.

And the important quote:" Use of the UDK for noncommercial purposes is free of charge."

Something that isn't possible with Windows SDK anymore.

Despite my asking a couple of times, you have yet to give a reason WinRT or Metro will block you from making a meaningful application.

That's because you are either stupid or a shill (yes, I went there, ban me if you will).

Or maybe such behavior is reserved for moderators only.