6 ms·

> One big caveat to Polaris will be that it is unable to run Win32 programs natively. However, reports indicate that Microsoft will be bringing the Centennial W

by ctrl-j 9y ago

> One big caveat to Polaris will be that it is unable to run Win32 programs natively. However, reports indicate that Microsoft will be bringing the Centennial Win32 app to Polaris employing virtualization. So.. no gamers, powerusers, or most corporate deployments. Got it. Can't wait for them to kill this off in 2-5 years.

kalcode 9y ago
So for the sake of continuing to hold back technology we are held down by enterprises and DOSGaming. In all seriousness we complain in the developer community that Internet Explorer and Edge holds back using more modern Javascript yet we make these excuses for OSes. Almost all programs I use now have a 64-bit executable. If I am using something that needs to run legacy software then I probably don't want the latest version of something to run legacy stuff. Also the article indicates you can still run 32-bit apps. Most older 32 bit games should run perfectly fine under virtualization. Even then it will be a few years before the majority of Steam user are even using Windows 10 as last I check over 50% were on Windows 7. So by the time gamers shift to Windows 10 i'd imagine their hardware will be more than adequate to handle virtualizing the 32-bit app, I can't imagine there will be much overhead to virtualizing 32-bit apps.
- ctrl-j 9y ago
  You've misunderstood. Win32 isn't 32-bit architecture. Win32 is the non UWP windows API. Photoshop, Visual Studio, Chrome.. you name it. Pretty much ALL executables fall into this category. Unless it's a UWP app. Almost all modern games will fall into this category. EDIT: To further explain, You still use Win32 for 64-bit processes. It's just a stupid name.
  - jdmichal 9y ago
    Well, the name made fine sense when it was introduced... Maybe it serves as a good warning to not include such things as dates and hardware versions in names at all.
  - kalcode 9y ago
    Opps. Yah I messed up the naming, I meant exes, but just started typing 64 vs 32 which really is only a memory thing, if you simplify it. Converting a Win32 exe using UWP Desktop Bridge is stupid easy though. Older exe with a lot of legacy dependencies may be more difficult or lack of source code. In which case they need a virtualization to run those legacy app. So even though all games/apps fall into this category most companies could have a UWP build ready very quickly.
    - dmitrygr 9y ago
      You do not understand how said "bridge" works... It just wraps the app, but underneath still calls those same win32 APIs. If you remove the APIs, "bridged" apps won't work. Hence why TFA mentions that not all win32 API can be removed and it isn't clear which will be. So "bridging" your win32 app will not somehow make it immune to win32 api going away.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 9y ago
  Thing is, in order to make this kind of cut over, you have to offer something in the new thing that the old thing doesn't have. In order for this to happen, Polaris will probably have to be much faster or MS will have to intentionally cripple regular Windows 10, if only by not supporting it with the same updates.
  - socrates666 9y ago
    Exactly this. If one hand taketh away...the other better give something equally awesome. Brb gonna go play more overwatch.
  - bitwize 9y ago
    Polaris could also introduce new APIs (DX13, HoloLens 2.0, etc.) that will only work in the UWP layer and be inaccessible from Win32.
    - jblow 9y ago
      That would kill HoloLens and DX13.
      - bitwize 9y ago
        Not if Microsoft buys Valve!
    - Narishma 9y ago
      The more likely scenario is that nobody will end up using those APIs, especially if there are alternatives like Vulkan that work on older Windows versions.
      - pjmlp 9y ago
        I remember when everyone was supposed to go GNU/Linux because DX 10 was Vista only while OpenGL was everywhere, so yeah, right.
    - megaman22 9y ago
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- redleggedfrog 9y ago
  "...enterprises and DOSGaming." The only two legitimate uses for computers. Only slightly kidding.
- jdmichal 9y ago
  Most DOS games were broken long ago just from clock speed changes. Many of them relied on things like spin loops for timing. Any person playing DOS games now is using DOSBox.
DanBC 9y ago
This is aimed at the netbook market. These machines have 64 bit processors, but not much ram (2 GB used to be common, 4 GB is a bit more common now). They also have tiny hard drives. It's possible to find machines sold today with just 32 GB drives. 64 GB is more common. Very many people just need something as powerful as a phone but with a bigger screen and a physical keyboard. Without MS providing something for this market they all move to Chromebooks and the Google suite. MS have, for very many years, offered cut-down product or alternative product to home users. MS Works (a fucking awful product, especially the spreadsheet) or Outlook Express are some examples. If MS offer some kind of Office functionality, even if cut-down, we'll see a bunch of people using it.
- WorldMaker 9y ago
  It's also related to efforts in Xbox, HoloLens, Surface Hub, IoT, and even still relevant to Windows on phone handsets despite no indication that that is currently a main goal. The goal has appeared to be since Windows 8 to have a modular Windows where you opt-in/buy-in to legacy backwards compatible systems as needs and hardware change. Polaris isn't so much a new idea as the next in a series of codenames for efforts that have been going on for some time.
- tengbretson 9y ago
  That doesn't make any sense though. The netbook market is drying up.
- tonyedgecombe 9y ago
  The new OS will be aimed specifically at traditional form factor devices like notebooks, desktops, and 2-in-1 computers.
- mdekkers 9y ago
  This is aimed at the netbook market. This is aimed at making the Windows Store more relevant. MS is looking to be the gatekeeper with an appstore
jakebasile 9y ago
Yep, as a gamer there is no chance I would willingly upgrade to this. I like being able to run 20 year old games natively if I feel like it. (e.g. Diablo 1, released in 1996, can still run without virtualization on Windows 10. Sometimes.) I wish Microsoft was content with just keeping Windows working. I'd buy a special "we will only issue security and compatibility updates" version if I could. I hardly ever want the new features they decide to add. UWP is garbage. the Microsoft/Windows/Zune store is garbage. Cortana is garbage. The Xbox app/game bar is garbage. I don't want any of it, I want Windows to run my games and get out of my way. edit: All that said, Edge is kind of OK.
- ctrl-j 9y ago
  > I like being able to run 20 year old games natively if I feel like it. (e.g. Diablo 1, released in 1996, can still run without virtualization on Windows 10. Sometimes.) As I pointed out below, this isn't even 20 year old games. Name a release in the last year - if it's not a first-party Microsoft title, chances are it's Win32. You mentioned Diablo 1, well with polaris Diablo III would need virtualization. Fortnight? PUBG? Overwatch? All are Win32 games. Excited for monster hunter in Q3? That'll be virtualized in polaris. This is going nowhere.
  - TheRealPomax 9y ago
    Can you explain what you understand will be going wrong when you imply that games needing virtualization will somehow "go nowhere"? Is there something about OS-managed virtualization (rather than application-managed virtualization) that you know that the rest of us don't? Why would a virtualized API even be noticable for modern games, which offload almost all the work to the GPU already anyway?
    - Strom 9y ago
      Only technical people have a clue what virtualization even means. Generally speaking, gamers haven't even heard of the word. Thus whatever virtualization soulution is used must be pretty much automatic. However if Windows already automatically handles this, then why mention that there's no Win32 support? Either people can keep launching their games on Steam or they can't. If they can't, then this new Windows won't win any fans among gamers. Even if there's automatic virtualization in place, as soon as you're losing fps, gamers won't be happy.
slezyr 9y ago
Don't worry, it will be able to run those using Wine. ducks, runs away
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 9y ago
  Sadly, the idea of running WINE on Windows for better compatibility isn't as funny as it used to be.
squarefoot 9y ago
That would be a huge chance for WINE to become the de facto platform for legacy Windows compatibility. It already does wonders: https://appdb.winehq.org/ https://appdb.winehq.org/
- pjmlp 9y ago
  I have been reading how it is going to do wonders for GNU/Linux since Windows XP came to be. Still don't see GNU/Linux systems on sale at the shopping mall.
jug 9y ago
And that's when Windows 10 has pretty low hardware requirements as long as you use an SSD. It IS already pretty light, as modern general purpose desktops go. They must be desperate to get Windows Store going. Didn't they learn anything from Windows RT?
- pjmlp 9y ago
  Yeah, it was a mistake not to package legacy apps into the store as well. Hence centennial project aka desktop bridge.
Const-me 9y ago
My 64 bit Windows can’t run 32 bit programs natively. WOW64 does quite a lot of work under the hood to make them run, it translates WinAPI, redirects file system and registry, etc. Works quite well in practice. I expect something similar will happen with Win32 apps in that new Windows 10.
- rbanffy 9y ago
  I think the point here is to break with legacy. It's expensive to keep it, error prone and it creates a lot of security issues. By shifting part of the work to software vendors, Microsoft forces the market to move on to newer APIs.
  - Const-me 9y ago
    That “legacy” i.e. backward compatibility is the major reason why people buy and use Windows. While indeed expensive to develop the platform, I think breaking it will be a disaster. See what happened with windows phones and tablets.
    - rbanffy 9y ago
      I still think the number one reason people buy Windows is that it's what comes with their computers. I don't see that changing.
    - pjmlp 9y ago
      Regular users only care about what is pre-installed with their hardware. Hence why the only way Linux (the kernel) only got successful for consumers with either a browser OS or a Java OS on top of it.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
JustSomeNobody 9y ago
> Another caveat is that there is no way for Microsoft to remove all the Win32 components from Windows Core OS. This is even worse. So dangling old code just hanging around to make the system unstable and insecure. Yay?

by ctrl-j 9y ago

kalcode 9y ago

So for the sake of continuing to hold back technology we are held down by enterprises and DOSGaming. In all seriousness we complain in the developer community that Internet Explorer and Edge holds back using more modern Javascript yet we make these excuses for OSes. Almost all programs I use now have a 64-bit executable. If I am using something that needs to run legacy software then I probably don't want the latest version of something to run legacy stuff. Also the article indicates you can still run 32-bit apps. Most older 32 bit games should run perfectly fine under virtualization. Even then it will be a few years before the majority of Steam user are even using Windows 10 as last I check over 50% were on Windows 7. So by the time gamers shift to Windows 10 i'd imagine their hardware will be more than adequate to handle virtualizing the 32-bit app, I can't imagine there will be much overhead to virtualizing 32-bit apps.

ctrl-j 9y ago
You've misunderstood. Win32 isn't 32-bit architecture. Win32 is the non UWP windows API. Photoshop, Visual Studio, Chrome.. you name it. Pretty much ALL executables fall into this category. Unless it's a UWP app. Almost all modern games will fall into this category. EDIT: To further explain, You still use Win32 for 64-bit processes. It's just a stupid name.
- jdmichal 9y ago
  Well, the name made fine sense when it was introduced... Maybe it serves as a good warning to not include such things as dates and hardware versions in names at all.
- kalcode 9y ago
  Opps. Yah I messed up the naming, I meant exes, but just started typing 64 vs 32 which really is only a memory thing, if you simplify it. Converting a Win32 exe using UWP Desktop Bridge is stupid easy though. Older exe with a lot of legacy dependencies may be more difficult or lack of source code. In which case they need a virtualization to run those legacy app. So even though all games/apps fall into this category most companies could have a UWP build ready very quickly.
  - dmitrygr 9y ago
    You do not understand how said "bridge" works... It just wraps the app, but underneath still calls those same win32 APIs. If you remove the APIs, "bridged" apps won't work. Hence why TFA mentions that not all win32 API can be removed and it isn't clear which will be. So "bridging" your win32 app will not somehow make it immune to win32 api going away.
AnIdiotOnTheNet 9y ago
Thing is, in order to make this kind of cut over, you have to offer something in the new thing that the old thing doesn't have. In order for this to happen, Polaris will probably have to be much faster or MS will have to intentionally cripple regular Windows 10, if only by not supporting it with the same updates.
- socrates666 9y ago
  Exactly this. If one hand taketh away...the other better give something equally awesome. Brb gonna go play more overwatch.
- bitwize 9y ago
  Polaris could also introduce new APIs (DX13, HoloLens 2.0, etc.) that will only work in the UWP layer and be inaccessible from Win32.
  - jblow 9y ago
    That would kill HoloLens and DX13.
    - bitwize 9y ago
      Not if Microsoft buys Valve!
  - Narishma 9y ago
    The more likely scenario is that nobody will end up using those APIs, especially if there are alternatives like Vulkan that work on older Windows versions.
    - pjmlp 9y ago
      I remember when everyone was supposed to go GNU/Linux because DX 10 was Vista only while OpenGL was everywhere, so yeah, right.
  - megaman22 9y ago
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
redleggedfrog 9y ago
"...enterprises and DOSGaming." The only two legitimate uses for computers. Only slightly kidding.
jdmichal 9y ago
Most DOS games were broken long ago just from clock speed changes. Many of them relied on things like spin loops for timing. Any person playing DOS games now is using DOSBox.

DanBC 9y ago

This is aimed at the netbook market. These machines have 64 bit processors, but not much ram (2 GB used to be common, 4 GB is a bit more common now). They also have tiny hard drives. It's possible to find machines sold today with just 32 GB drives. 64 GB is more common. Very many people just need something as powerful as a phone but with a bigger screen and a physical keyboard. Without MS providing something for this market they all move to Chromebooks and the Google suite. MS have, for very many years, offered cut-down product or alternative product to home users. MS Works (a fucking awful product, especially the spreadsheet) or Outlook Express are some examples. If MS offer some kind of Office functionality, even if cut-down, we'll see a bunch of people using it.

WorldMaker 9y ago
It's also related to efforts in Xbox, HoloLens, Surface Hub, IoT, and even still relevant to Windows on phone handsets despite no indication that that is currently a main goal. The goal has appeared to be since Windows 8 to have a modular Windows where you opt-in/buy-in to legacy backwards compatible systems as needs and hardware change. Polaris isn't so much a new idea as the next in a series of codenames for efforts that have been going on for some time.
tengbretson 9y ago
That doesn't make any sense though. The netbook market is drying up.
tonyedgecombe 9y ago
The new OS will be aimed specifically at traditional form factor devices like notebooks, desktops, and 2-in-1 computers.
mdekkers 9y ago
This is aimed at the netbook market. This is aimed at making the Windows Store more relevant. MS is looking to be the gatekeeper with an appstore

jakebasile 9y ago

Yep, as a gamer there is no chance I would willingly upgrade to this. I like being able to run 20 year old games natively if I feel like it. (e.g. Diablo 1, released in 1996, can still run without virtualization on Windows 10. Sometimes.) I wish Microsoft was content with just keeping Windows working. I'd buy a special "we will only issue security and compatibility updates" version if I could. I hardly ever want the new features they decide to add. UWP is garbage. the Microsoft/Windows/Zune store is garbage. Cortana is garbage. The Xbox app/game bar is garbage. I don't want any of it, I want Windows to run my games and get out of my way. edit: All that said, Edge is kind of OK.

ctrl-j 9y ago
> I like being able to run 20 year old games natively if I feel like it. (e.g. Diablo 1, released in 1996, can still run without virtualization on Windows 10. Sometimes.) As I pointed out below, this isn't even 20 year old games. Name a release in the last year - if it's not a first-party Microsoft title, chances are it's Win32. You mentioned Diablo 1, well with polaris Diablo III would need virtualization. Fortnight? PUBG? Overwatch? All are Win32 games. Excited for monster hunter in Q3? That'll be virtualized in polaris. This is going nowhere.
- TheRealPomax 9y ago
  Can you explain what you understand will be going wrong when you imply that games needing virtualization will somehow "go nowhere"? Is there something about OS-managed virtualization (rather than application-managed virtualization) that you know that the rest of us don't? Why would a virtualized API even be noticable for modern games, which offload almost all the work to the GPU already anyway?
  - Strom 9y ago
    Only technical people have a clue what virtualization even means. Generally speaking, gamers haven't even heard of the word. Thus whatever virtualization soulution is used must be pretty much automatic. However if Windows already automatically handles this, then why mention that there's no Win32 support? Either people can keep launching their games on Steam or they can't. If they can't, then this new Windows won't win any fans among gamers. Even if there's automatic virtualization in place, as soon as you're losing fps, gamers won't be happy.

slezyr 9y ago

Don't worry, it will be able to run those using Wine. ducks, runs away

AnIdiotOnTheNet 9y ago
Sadly, the idea of running WINE on Windows for better compatibility isn't as funny as it used to be.

squarefoot 9y ago

That would be a huge chance for WINE to become the de facto platform for legacy Windows compatibility. It already does wonders: https://appdb.winehq.org/ https://appdb.winehq.org/

pjmlp 9y ago
I have been reading how it is going to do wonders for GNU/Linux since Windows XP came to be. Still don't see GNU/Linux systems on sale at the shopping mall.

jug 9y ago

And that's when Windows 10 has pretty low hardware requirements as long as you use an SSD. It IS already pretty light, as modern general purpose desktops go. They must be desperate to get Windows Store going. Didn't they learn anything from Windows RT?

pjmlp 9y ago
Yeah, it was a mistake not to package legacy apps into the store as well. Hence centennial project aka desktop bridge.

Const-me 9y ago

My 64 bit Windows can’t run 32 bit programs natively. WOW64 does quite a lot of work under the hood to make them run, it translates WinAPI, redirects file system and registry, etc. Works quite well in practice. I expect something similar will happen with Win32 apps in that new Windows 10.

rbanffy 9y ago
I think the point here is to break with legacy. It's expensive to keep it, error prone and it creates a lot of security issues. By shifting part of the work to software vendors, Microsoft forces the market to move on to newer APIs.
- Const-me 9y ago
  That “legacy” i.e. backward compatibility is the major reason why people buy and use Windows. While indeed expensive to develop the platform, I think breaking it will be a disaster. See what happened with windows phones and tablets.
  - rbanffy 9y ago
    I still think the number one reason people buy Windows is that it's what comes with their computers. I don't see that changing.
  - pjmlp 9y ago
    Regular users only care about what is pre-installed with their hardware. Hence why the only way Linux (the kernel) only got successful for consumers with either a browser OS or a Java OS on top of it.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

JustSomeNobody 9y ago

> Another caveat is that there is no way for Microsoft to remove all the Win32 components from Windows Core OS. This is even worse. So dangling old code just hanging around to make the system unstable and insecure. Yay?