3 ms·

I just don't get why they did that.

by ape4 10y ago

zamalek 10y ago
Sinofsky had a reputation for not working well with anyone outside of his team[1]..Net (including WPF) occurs outside of the Windows team. [1]: http://allthingsd.com/20121113/in-the-sinofsky-departure-bill-gates-sided-with-the-other-steve-ballmer-at-microsoft/ http://allthingsd.com/20121113/in-the-sinofsky-departure-bil...
smacktoward 10y ago
As was the case with the old Soviet Union, Microsoft decisions frequently only make sense when viewed through the lens of internal politics -- of one apparatchik trying to stick a knife in the back of another, in order to increase their own power. My guess on this one: the new Metro-style app platform was the work of Sinofsky's Windows Division, while traditional XAML app tooling belonged to some other division. In such a scenario, if XAML could be deprecated and Metro-style apps made the One Way to develop apps on Windows, it would mean that a big slice of Microsoft's business that had previously belonged to some other exec would now belong to Sinofsky. (A turf war, in other words.) If the idea of a Microsoft executive being willing to pursue a course that would hurt Microsoft just to increase his own power seems unrealistic, I would refer you to the Iron Law of Institutions (http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/001705.html http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/001705.html): The people who control institutions care first and foremost about their power within the institution rather than the power of the institution itself. Thus, they would rather the institution "fail" while they remain in power within the institution than for the institution to "succeed" if that requires them to lose power within the institution.
- pjmlp 10y ago
  It is also a reason why Longhorn kind of failed. Windows division wasn't happy seeing the new .NET guys getting all the focus and I bet most of the issues weren't technical challenges that couldn't be solved, rather political between divisions. After all, history of computing has enough examples of OSes being done in memory safe languages. I also bet it is no coincidence that WinRT model isn't nothing more that the COM+ Runtime brought back from the ashes, using .NET metadata instead of COM type libraries. This is what .NET was supposed to be like, before Microsoft decided to go with the CLR approach instead.
- SideburnsOfDoom 10y ago
  > while traditional XAML app tooling belonged to some other division That would be Developer Division. And a little later, this happened http://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-splits-up-its-xaml-team-whats-the-fallout/ http://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-splits-up-its-xaml-te...
- snaky 10y ago
  Yes, that's a story of pretty much every structure big enough.
grokys 10y ago
And indeed it wasn't popular at all with devs: http://www.zdnet.com/article/windows-8-developers-are-shunning-winjs/ http://www.zdnet.com/article/windows-8-developers-are-shunni...

I just don't get why they did that.

by ape4 10y ago

I just don't get why they did that.

Sinofsky had a reputation for not working well with anyone outside of his team[1]..Net (including WPF) occurs outside of the Windows team. [1]: http://allthingsd.com/20121113/in-the-sinofsky-departure-bill-gates-sided-with-the-other-steve-ballmer-at-microsoft/ http://allthingsd.com/20121113/in-the-sinofsky-departure-bil...

smacktoward 10y ago

As was the case with the old Soviet Union, Microsoft decisions frequently only make sense when viewed through the lens of internal politics -- of one apparatchik trying to stick a knife in the back of another, in order to increase their own power. My guess on this one: the new Metro-style app platform was the work of Sinofsky's Windows Division, while traditional XAML app tooling belonged to some other division. In such a scenario, if XAML could be deprecated and Metro-style apps made the One Way to develop apps on Windows, it would mean that a big slice of Microsoft's business that had previously belonged to some other exec would now belong to Sinofsky. (A turf war, in other words.) If the idea of a Microsoft executive being willing to pursue a course that would hurt Microsoft just to increase his own power seems unrealistic, I would refer you to the Iron Law of Institutions (http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/001705.html http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/001705.html): The people who control institutions care first and foremost about their power within the institution rather than the power of the institution itself. Thus, they would rather the institution "fail" while they remain in power within the institution than for the institution to "succeed" if that requires them to lose power within the institution.

pjmlp 10y ago
It is also a reason why Longhorn kind of failed. Windows division wasn't happy seeing the new .NET guys getting all the focus and I bet most of the issues weren't technical challenges that couldn't be solved, rather political between divisions. After all, history of computing has enough examples of OSes being done in memory safe languages. I also bet it is no coincidence that WinRT model isn't nothing more that the COM+ Runtime brought back from the ashes, using .NET metadata instead of COM type libraries. This is what .NET was supposed to be like, before Microsoft decided to go with the CLR approach instead.
SideburnsOfDoom 10y ago
> while traditional XAML app tooling belonged to some other division That would be Developer Division. And a little later, this happened http://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-splits-up-its-xaml-team-whats-the-fallout/ http://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-splits-up-its-xaml-te...
snaky 10y ago
Yes, that's a story of pretty much every structure big enough.

grokys 10y ago

And indeed it wasn't popular at all with devs: http://www.zdnet.com/article/windows-8-developers-are-shunning-winjs/ http://www.zdnet.com/article/windows-8-developers-are-shunni...