5 ms·

These are only opinions, just like the article. I agree with the author that mobile isn't enterprise. Even if enterprise is clamoring for it now, it is a fad fo

These are only opinions, just like the article. I agree with the author that mobile isn't enterprise. Even if enterprise is clamoring for it now, it is a fad for precisely the reasons that the author pointed out. It's a local minimum of productivity that we will eventually tunnel out of; to an area where a real productivity curve exists (mouse, keyboard and monitor most likely). I disagree that UWP is synonymous with mobile and the author has used the two interchangeably incorrectly. UWP, in theory, runs on all devices but - newsflash - Windows mobile is completely dead. It's exactly like having a go at Linux because it supports DEC. All UWP is, is a more modern version of WPF that supports more than one execution target (CLI, JS or native). It so happens to run across many devices. I can't see why you wouldn't develop your enterprise software using it (apart from the horrific store) because it's no different from any other stack. If you don't care about it working on mobile, don't deploy to mobile. If you don't care about XBox, don't care about XBox. If you care about one platform only, support that one platform only. The bonus is that if you aren't enterprise, and do care about the platforms you support, you can carry your skills there. Now, you'd be utterly mad to actually use it (as you would depend on users mad enough to use the store) - but that's the idea behind it.

therockhead 9y ago
The platform UWP needs to run on is Windows 7. Without that support it’s not an option for my company.
- cm2187 9y ago
  A lot of enterprises have only recently moved to Windows 7 (like my employer). A framework that is incompatible with Windows 7 is just a non starter.
  - tallanvor 9y ago
    I think you'll find that your employer will move to a newer OS more quickly. Windows 7 is already in extended support, and that ends in 2020. Microsoft is doing their best to reduce the need to support legacy products, so a custom support agreement for Windows 7 is going to be extremely expensive.
    - cm2187 9y ago
      Perhaps, though given how long it took between the begining and end of the win7 roll out I am not convinced. But in any case any IT team starting a project for a few more years will not touch UWP since at least some of the users will be under Win7.
    - e1ven 9y ago
      I've spoken with several companies that just finished transitioning to Windows 7 in the last year or so. For them, official support from MS is not a major factor in their decisions. Whether it should be or not is another matter, but in talking with them, availability of patches really doesn't move the needle as much as you'd expect.
      - naikrovek 9y ago
        Then they have very little understanding of information security, I would say.
      - TheCoelacanth 9y ago
        Connecting a computer running an unsupported OS to the Internet is straight up negligence. You are basically asking to get hacked.
- dingo_bat 9y ago
  Why though? Does your company mandate 10 year old cars too?
  - jenscow 9y ago
    Cars are physical objects that degrade with use/time. An operating system will run as good as it did 10 years ago (just not as good as those released 10 years later)
    - hamandcheese 9y ago
      This isn't strictly true, as exploits are found the experience can definitely degrade.
  - therockhead 9y ago
    The reason is simple, Windows 7 has over 40% market share. It's hard to ignore that.
- WorldMaker 9y ago
  Xamarin has a WPF renderer in some state that is somewhat UWP interoperable. Maintaining a UWP head and WPF head with .NET Standard libraries shared between them is a reasonable option in some circumstances. But better still, maybe encourage your employers not to death race upgrades versus exploits all the way to the bitter end in April 2020 like they did with XP's extended support period.
  - therockhead 9y ago
    >But better still, maybe encourage your employers not to death race upgrades versus exploits all the way to the bitter end in April 2020 like they did with XP's extended support period. Ikr, but we can't expect all our customer to upgrade just because our product is in UMP. When we looked at one of our products user base, we could see that over 50% used Windows 7. That ruled out UMP for the subsequent project.
deanchalk 9y ago
UWP is unfortunately not a modern version of WPF. It is an adapted form of the Windows 8 'WinRT' platform. It originates from Silverlight of all things. This is part of the problem, its almost impossible to create WPF-like 'power user' experiences with UWP - as its design philosophy is 'mobile first' and 'touch first'. Enterprises who would think of building apps with functionality that can be delivered with a UWP app are more likely to just build a web app - its cheaper and requires less maintenance.
- WorldMaker 9y ago
  The WinRT XAML control stack originates more from directly from "Avalon", WPF's precursor, than Silverlight. Windows Phone 7 was Silverlight-based as an interim stepping stone, and the .NET Core platform is closer in origin to Silverlight than the classic desktop .NET Framework (though not exactly either), which are sources of confusion there, but WinRT/UWP doesn't originate from Silverlight (it just inherits some insight/lessons from it). I've seen some great power user experiences with UWP, even ones that are happy being "mobile first" and "touch first". "Touch first" is still great for mousing (especially as screen DPIs keep rising and more setups involve monitors in multiple DPI resolutions), even if you think it leads to lower information density (there are tricks to that). At least in Enterprise environments I've worked "mobile first" is incredibly useful because people are happy being able to work from the device they already carry around at all times. It's to my sadness there isn't more Windows mobile devices as Cordova and/or Xamarin continue to eat up more and more of my development time I could be spending more directly on the applications themselves.
  - Const-me 9y ago
    > "Touch first" is still great for mousing (especially as screen DPIs keep rising and more setups involve monitors in multiple DPI resolutions) WPF is based on vector graphics just like XAML, and high DPI is available for a long time. Per-monitor DPI support is also available for more than a year, they did that in .NET 4.6.2 released in 2016.
    - WorldMaker 9y ago
bonesss 9y ago
> I can't see why you wouldn't develop your enterprise software using it... because it's no different from any other stack From a .Net perspective, the article authors, it's the debugging challenges that are the major salient difference between WPF and UWP. Considering the demands those frameworks place on developers who are making 'innovative' GUIs there are numerous things that can go terribly wrong at run-time. A lack of relevant debugging tools and a hop between technologies could be a showstopper for some. COM + .Net competence, like competence with the Win32 API, is somewhat generational. Younger .Net developers are not versed in these things, and those who are command significantly higher salaries and are increasingly less likely to be doing front-end work over time. If you're dealing with Enterprise customers, or development in the Enterprise, there are real costs associated with moving your baseline developer requirements into specialist territories.

therockhead 9y ago

The platform UWP needs to run on is Windows 7. Without that support it’s not an option for my company.

cm2187 9y ago
A lot of enterprises have only recently moved to Windows 7 (like my employer). A framework that is incompatible with Windows 7 is just a non starter.
- tallanvor 9y ago
  I think you'll find that your employer will move to a newer OS more quickly. Windows 7 is already in extended support, and that ends in 2020. Microsoft is doing their best to reduce the need to support legacy products, so a custom support agreement for Windows 7 is going to be extremely expensive.
  - cm2187 9y ago
    Perhaps, though given how long it took between the begining and end of the win7 roll out I am not convinced. But in any case any IT team starting a project for a few more years will not touch UWP since at least some of the users will be under Win7.
  - e1ven 9y ago
    I've spoken with several companies that just finished transitioning to Windows 7 in the last year or so. For them, official support from MS is not a major factor in their decisions. Whether it should be or not is another matter, but in talking with them, availability of patches really doesn't move the needle as much as you'd expect.
    - naikrovek 9y ago
      Then they have very little understanding of information security, I would say.
    - TheCoelacanth 9y ago
      Connecting a computer running an unsupported OS to the Internet is straight up negligence. You are basically asking to get hacked.
dingo_bat 9y ago
Why though? Does your company mandate 10 year old cars too?
- jenscow 9y ago
  Cars are physical objects that degrade with use/time. An operating system will run as good as it did 10 years ago (just not as good as those released 10 years later)
  - hamandcheese 9y ago
    This isn't strictly true, as exploits are found the experience can definitely degrade.
- therockhead 9y ago
  The reason is simple, Windows 7 has over 40% market share. It's hard to ignore that.
WorldMaker 9y ago
Xamarin has a WPF renderer in some state that is somewhat UWP interoperable. Maintaining a UWP head and WPF head with .NET Standard libraries shared between them is a reasonable option in some circumstances. But better still, maybe encourage your employers not to death race upgrades versus exploits all the way to the bitter end in April 2020 like they did with XP's extended support period.
- therockhead 9y ago
  >But better still, maybe encourage your employers not to death race upgrades versus exploits all the way to the bitter end in April 2020 like they did with XP's extended support period. Ikr, but we can't expect all our customer to upgrade just because our product is in UMP. When we looked at one of our products user base, we could see that over 50% used Windows 7. That ruled out UMP for the subsequent project.

deanchalk 9y ago

UWP is unfortunately not a modern version of WPF. It is an adapted form of the Windows 8 'WinRT' platform. It originates from Silverlight of all things. This is part of the problem, its almost impossible to create WPF-like 'power user' experiences with UWP - as its design philosophy is 'mobile first' and 'touch first'. Enterprises who would think of building apps with functionality that can be delivered with a UWP app are more likely to just build a web app - its cheaper and requires less maintenance.

WorldMaker 9y ago
The WinRT XAML control stack originates more from directly from "Avalon", WPF's precursor, than Silverlight. Windows Phone 7 was Silverlight-based as an interim stepping stone, and the .NET Core platform is closer in origin to Silverlight than the classic desktop .NET Framework (though not exactly either), which are sources of confusion there, but WinRT/UWP doesn't originate from Silverlight (it just inherits some insight/lessons from it). I've seen some great power user experiences with UWP, even ones that are happy being "mobile first" and "touch first". "Touch first" is still great for mousing (especially as screen DPIs keep rising and more setups involve monitors in multiple DPI resolutions), even if you think it leads to lower information density (there are tricks to that). At least in Enterprise environments I've worked "mobile first" is incredibly useful because people are happy being able to work from the device they already carry around at all times. It's to my sadness there isn't more Windows mobile devices as Cordova and/or Xamarin continue to eat up more and more of my development time I could be spending more directly on the applications themselves.
- Const-me 9y ago
  > "Touch first" is still great for mousing (especially as screen DPIs keep rising and more setups involve monitors in multiple DPI resolutions) WPF is based on vector graphics just like XAML, and high DPI is available for a long time. Per-monitor DPI support is also available for more than a year, they did that in .NET 4.6.2 released in 2016.
  - WorldMaker 9y ago

bonesss 9y ago

> I can't see why you wouldn't develop your enterprise software using it... because it's no different from any other stack From a .Net perspective, the article authors, it's the debugging challenges that are the major salient difference between WPF and UWP. Considering the demands those frameworks place on developers who are making 'innovative' GUIs there are numerous things that can go terribly wrong at run-time. A lack of relevant debugging tools and a hop between technologies could be a showstopper for some. COM + .Net competence, like competence with the Win32 API, is somewhat generational. Younger .Net developers are not versed in these things, and those who are command significantly higher salaries and are increasingly less likely to be doing front-end work over time. If you're dealing with Enterprise customers, or development in the Enterprise, there are real costs associated with moving your baseline developer requirements into specialist territories.