4 ms·
OP says Windows needs builders to make applications and that is what Windows Lite would enable (or expand) but then says Windows Lite shouldn't include .NET one
by chris_money202 4mo ago
OP says Windows needs builders to make applications and that is what Windows Lite would enable (or expand) but then says Windows Lite shouldn't include .NET one of the primary frameworks to build applications on Windows.
- vadikgo 4mo ago[dead]
- pbohun 4mo agoHonestly, I think starting from win32 again would be a breath of fresh air. Also, note that I described it as an option, no one would be forced on Windows Lite. It was my own speculation that it would become popular.
- refulgentis 4mo agoThe blog post itself is wishcasting, but it’s missing the point completely once we strip .NET. .NET has been around since I was at least 11, I’m 38 now. I don’t know why it’d be considered optional, the backwards compatibility story disappears without it. Once we want to start fresh from Win32 it’s just not-Windows programmer who vaguely understands Win32 is still available, rather than anything helping anyone.
- miah_ 4mo ago.NET is still installable as a standalone thing. In fact I probably have several versions installed on my current Windows PC. No reason Windows Lite couldn't also have .NET installed _when you need it_.
- chris_money202 4mo agoI still don't know if I am sold with that. .NET is also a runtime so how do you handle the user story? If your users are also on Windows Lite then they have to manage .NET version or you have to package .NET with whatever you build. If your users are on full Windows, wouldn't it just make sense for you to build in same environment as your Users? Especially since IT would have to manage two separate operating systems if devs went Windows Lite and say Sales using the target app was on Windows. This whole thing makes sense for indie devs or build VMs but breaks down for Enterprise pretty quick, and Microsoft is much more friendly to Enterprise customers than indie devs.
- contextfree 4mo agoThey already have this problem, Windows includes .NET Framework 4.x but not any modern version of .NET
- maxrmk 4mo agoRight! Everything from word to the calculator app uses .NET these days. Even many games!
- kristianp 4mo agoIf you're talking about the Word in Microsoft Office, I believe it doesn't require .Net. Office add-ins can be built with .Net though.
- TiredOfLife 4mo agoAnd recent installs of 11 already have the old .net framework as an optional feature install.
- debugnik 4mo agoThe .NET that comes with Windows is the ridiculously outdated .NET Framework 4.8. But most greenfield projects should have been using the newer .NET (previously .NET Core) for several years now, which is installed separately or deployed as self-contained apps.
- hypercube33 4mo agoThe majority of software runs on old outdated .net framework and no one is going to take the time to port it to .net 10 even though it only takes a short time to do so itself, but keep in mind a lot of this isn't the porting it's the testing, release which includes 20 year old enterprise clients who are stingy about change and paying for any updated anything.
- debugnik 4mo agoI know, and those can keep using Framework 4.8, but the topic here is attracting developers to Windows, and the primary toolchain for that today definitely isn't Framework 4.8, so the top comment is moot.
- tpoacher 4mo agoHow about this analogy then: "OP says Windows needs webdevs to make webpages, but then says Windows Lite internals shouldn't be tightly knit with Internet Explorer, one of the primary means of viewing webpages on windows."