2 ms·
This sounds nice and reasonable, but I think it's a post hoc explanation that doesn't quite work. Look at the language in the linked article. It talks about con
by bradleyjg 11y ago
This sounds nice and reasonable, but I think it's a post hoc explanation that doesn't quite work. Look at the language in the linked article. It talks about converting my "Win32 apps" into "Universal Windows Platform apps". But those legacy programs aren't "apps" within the meaning you've laid out.
- bradford 11y agoI'll confess ignorance over what exactly the converter does, or how it does it. I don't know anything more than what was announced today. The article says that it converts win32/.net apps into appx packages, and I'd assume that this does encompass 'the meaning that I've laid out'.
- tstrimple 11y agoIt does. It sandboxes the filesystem and registry as well.
- Eyas 11y agogp uses 'app' the way you did, presumably to mean UWP application. Win32 apps are "programs"/"applications" written using the Win32 api. I don't think there's anything post-hoc in the explanation other than the use of the word "app".