Advertisement

Visual Studio 11 Express

Started by May 22, 2012 01:29 AM
103 comments, last by Tom Sloper 12 years, 5 months ago
Erm... wtf are you all going on about in this thread?[/quote]

I'm being lectured on how I don't get Metro and how it's a perfect and complete replacement for my current desktop usage.

The arguements against Metro as being 'not suitable for IDE development' are utter rubbish because this is not what Metro is there for.[/quote]

IDE is integral part of my daily routine. And since up to this day world existed without Metro, it means Metro wasn't needed until now. And not a single feature improves on current use, everything is at minimum an annoyance that I can no longer turn off.

for some people the Metro fullscreen version will be just fine as they only want to work on one document at a time.[/quote]

Of course it will. For a large portion of users, Metro is almost everything they'll ever need.

But telling me that Metro is just fine for my needs and I just need to accept the new paradigm because it's the better new way of doing things, is pointless.

The Metro Start Screen defaults to your primary monitor, the secondary one shows the rest of the desktop.[/quote]

It does.

But now, instead of hitting windows key + app_name, I need to hit Windows key and then move the mouse towards a nice square image of the app I need to run. It's not an improvement for desktop use. Alternative will be to keep icons on desktop, which is a compromise, but I still lose keyboard access and I need to minimize all open windows.

For desktop use, I (we) don't need metro, don't want metro and it doesn't improve on a single thing. Yet it's being forced down everyone's throat droning on and on how it's perfectly natural evolution and how it just takes some getting used to.


Like I said. Metro is fine for simple blog readers, for posting on twitter and watching your images as well as games. For what it was made.

Is that what your daily professional routine involves? If not, then how does Metro being forced into everything improve it? If something doesn't improve, then it's either an annoyance or useless.

I'm being lectured on how I don't get Metro and how it's a perfect and complete replacement for my current desktop usage.

I NEVER said that.
Advertisement

Erm... wtf are you all going on about in this thread?


I'm being lectured on how I don't get Metro and how it's a perfect and complete replacement for my current desktop usage.
[/quote]

Show me.
Show me where someone said that.

What you are being "lectured" on is the massive load of FUD ladened BS which seems to spew out of every other post... your most recent ones have wandered off down some fictional route where Metro is The One True OS Experiance, the desk top doesn't exist and we are all living in a Metro Only World on the desktop which is about a million miles away from where we are now.

You are taking one thing (Windows 8 has Metro, MS want people to make Metro apps) and running it far far off into the distance to produce a massive strawman arguement using your conclusions based on things you've invented in your own head to re-enforce your world view that Metro is the worst thing ever (or whatever it is that is going on up there).

No one has claimed Windows 8 is prefect, no one has claimed that Metro Is The One True Way (not even MS) and yet somehow... we've ended up down that path...

Madness or stupidity?
I honestly can't figure out which right now...
Show me.
Show me where someone said that.[/quote]

Meh.

your most recent ones have wandered off down some fictional route where Metro is The One True OS Experiance, the desk top doesn't exist and we are all living in a Metro Only World on the desktop which is about a million miles away from where we are now.[/quote]

Um...

Original topic was about changes to development tools and they strongly favor Metro. All in line with MS strategy and all that, nothing new.

I did claim that barriers to desktop development were raised, quite specifically, with a price tag on Visual Studio, coupled with changes to Windows SDK. Desktop isn't dead, nor is development impossible. But changes that were made do require some reconsideration on future directions. While WinSDK 2010 remains available, it's a generally bad strategy to base future development on previous versions of tools with no clear follow up.

Microsoft's history also shows that they will eliminate technologies and full technology stacks.

Likewise, when Oracle bought Sun, same thing happened. Anyone with any reliance on Sun-related technologies had to reconsider their choice. Not just obvious Java, even for stuff like VirtualBox, which introduced changes soon thereafter.

That would hardly be called madness or stupidity, pretending none of that matters however is. We might have little say about it, but it's still how things work.
----


The rest of the debate seemed to be going on about viability of Metro interface vs. current functionality for specific tasks.

As per topic of the thread, changes to Visual Studio affect desktop development.

That part was not about Metro being in any way bad, but about why raising the barrier on desktop development isn't a completely understandable choice at this point.


As for future, what I do need is to consider a "worst case" scenario - namely that building for desktop will come at a higher price. Not the end of the world, just a practical consideration. Like gas prices, where one might speculate on where they will go and if it is better to switch to public transport, along with everything that brings.

most recent ones have wandered off down some fictional route where Metro is The One True OS Experiance[/quote]

I'm not sure where you're getting that, my position was that it's highly unlikely for that to ever happen.

That part of the debate started here with: "However, a lot of people are taking for granted that desktop applications shouldn't be the norm anymore in Windows 8. As painful as it will be moving to a new paradigm, it is a paradigm that will net in greater access for content creators to consumers, and more satisfied consumers because of a standardized experience across applications."
and
"I think time would be better spent arguing for support of necessary features in WinRT rather than arguing for further support of desktop apps."


That is where the "Metro is the One True OS" comes from - not from me.
[/quote]
It's that it's what's next is why people are worried. No one is complaining about having to learn something new - they're complaining about what the new thing is.
It isn't that WinRT is new; it's that WinRT means only Metro, which means only full screen phablet apps. Phones and tablets are great, but not everyone is writing software only for them. When I tried out the Windows 8 preview, I was excited - the idea of having the same core OS, with UIs optimised for different devices, is a brilliant one. But people telling me I should be running full-screen all the time, and the "desktop" should be lost? I'm not so sure...
Also see the ars article I linked - it means that MS no longer support free software development, and the Metro future is one completely locked down (like Apple IOS) and controlled by MS.


You can still make desktop apps...Metro is locked down. Windows 8 is not.

Yes some people have said they'll use Mac OS or Linux - I think that counts as part of the criticism of Windows 8![/quote]

Who cares? If you think that Mac OS or Linux will get anywhere near MS in OS users you need to wake up. Windows rules the PC. Apple rules the handhelds. If Vista didn't kill the Giant, nothing will. xD

By that logic, no one should complain about anything.[/quote]
Depends on the situation. In this case, its pointless. Does Apple listen to people? Why aren't gas prices lower? Why isnt college free?

"We need something new, this is new, therefore we should do this".[/quote]
Actually, yeah. Its Windows. Its new and runs better. Also, its Microsoft. You know, the guys who make Visual Studio? They also make video game consoles. And I'm thinking that Metro/WinRT or similar will be the new XNA for their next indie or pro stuff on the next Xbox. Probably future phones too and tablets and obviously the PC. So, why not?

What is so wrong about being first or at the start of a new "market" of an OS that have compatability with each other? And Metro apps will run on Intel/AMD and ARM CPU's.
I see wins!

[/quote]

How do you implement Eclipse (or any other IDE) in Metro? Better yet, who will do it, considering Java isn't supported. Or, if not a fan of Eclipse, use Visual Studio.


Java runs just fine on Windows 8. Its a freaking Virtual Machine. So, Eclipse should have no problems. I ran Netbeans and Java games. In Metro? Not sure, its a Desktop app, just like you have used it all this time.

How do I add time tracker, which is a sidebar widget to always show up.
I cannot put Skype in the background, since I need to watch it to see the user feedback and/or screen cap they are providing.
Email contains various details, passwords and other correspondence related to the problem, I need to have access to it, switching left and right isn't possible.
Checklist is a list that you follow, step-by-step, it needs to be present next to everything else. Current system is browser-based.
CRM is another list which needs to be present, it contains cross-references of the person I'm dealing with, along with their account information, runs in second browser window.[/quote]

If it works on Windows 7 it will or can work on Windows 8.

Once you install and run Windows 8, you'll see why the above doesn't work. Metro is the square things on the startup. Desktop is the thing with taskbar at bottom. Arguments here are about why pushing Metro as the only thing doesn't come even close to a replacement for desktop.[/quote]

I have no clue what you are saying here...the Desktop will be there and so will Metro. What is the argument here? Its the same Windows 7 but better and with a new optional tablet style interface, <em>Optional!</em>.


If Windows 8 works for you, fine. This isn't about theoretical doability - we could as well be using paper mail - it's about how unusable new interface is for tasks and applications which are the norm.[/quote]

Don't freaking use Metro!? Press that "Windows" Key and use the Desktop like you have used your whole life? Sheesh, Windows 8 is just Windows 7 with an optional interface. If you dislike Windows 8, you hate Windows 7.

People like you and me, are why MS made the Metro style interface optional. Why don't I have a problem with it and you do? Are you sure you tried Windows 8? Cause its exactly the same thing, 93.33% of the time.

[/quote]
While WinSDK 2010 remains available, it's a generally bad strategy to base future development on previous versions of tools with no clear follow up.


How long do you think Windows 8 will last? 3 or 4 years? maybe 5? Well, that's your timeline. Oh wait...we still support Windows XP!? Ahh, you got atleast 10 years to do your work. You'll be fine Antheus.

What iOS/OSX still offer is ability to develop non-iOS/non-appstore applications considerably cheaper ($99 license covers everything), then you're free to distribute anything you want, iOS or desktop.
Just as a side point, surely you don't even need a license to do anything, if it's for non-IOS (i.e., OS X), and not through their download site? (I.e., like every other operating system that isn't Windows.) Or did Apple change that?


It would be nice if they supported desktop apps using only specific parts of the API in the market, but do you really need more than 2 applications per monitor? I think the most apps I ever have viewable on my 2 monitors is 3, maybe 4. After that it gets too cluttered imo.
Still more than 1, then.

To add to Antheus's usability examples:

Someone might be writing an essay or report, whilst looking at information on Wikipedia. People might take a photo, want to crop it in an editor, then send it to Facebook. That's not to say there aren't other ways to do multitasking - my last example is an obvious smartphone example, which smartphones manage to do. But you do need to think about it, you can't just say "Oh, people only use one app at a time".

Similarly there are cases where people might want to quickly glance at things that run all the time - see who's online with your IM app, or reading the headlines on the news in an app that shows them. Or consider the recent trend in desktop OSs for "widgets" that display things all the time.

I'd also add that it's not the simpler apps that should be using Metro. I mean, we seem to have this idea that complex apps may still need windowed mode, but a simply phone-like app should be using the Metro tablet interface. But I would say the opposite - complex apps that you spend a lot of time working in need the space (e.g., a 3D renderer), and are more likely to be used on their own, where as a simple app like a calculator or notepad doesn't, and is more likely to be something you use quickly and briefly whilst working with other apps.

- Run these on second or third screen switching between them as necessary just like you would do right now.[/quote]Can I clarify - so you're saying running full screen is okay, because you have multiple monitors?

If people need to resort to buying extra monitors, then I think that kind of proves the point that people want to see multiple apps at once. What about people who can't afford that, or don't have the space, or are working on laptops (which could be a 17" HD screen, before you say that laptops are too small anyway - although I still sometimes use windowing on my 10" Samsng netbook)?

If you are minimizing, maximizing, resizing, and refocussing windows you can do all that with metro just fine. You can have metro running in one window and desktop in another. You can run metro and desktop in the same window simultaneously. You can switch between metro and desktop practically instantly on a single monitor if you don't want them sharing space.[/quote]I think Windows 8 as implemented is great. I'm talking about the idea that we should all move to Metro and give up on "desktop" - is that what you meant when you talked about moving to a new paradigm, or did we misunderstand you?

Metro has better support for multiple monitors than standard windows starting with the June update to the release preview. I don't understand why Metro is useless for multiple monitors when it has more functionality with multiple monitors than Windows 7.[/quote]I think you're missing his point. He's criticising the argument of "Most people don't need non-full-screen apps, therefore it's okay not to have them at all". If that isn't your argument, then can you clarify what is?

Then I'll argue for support of creating non-full screen apps in WinRT smile.png
[/quote]
WinRT supports this. WinRT != Metro.[/quote]Well that's good then - but other posters have said the opposite. Can anyone provide a link/reference to state for sure? (I mean, I think it is the case that VS Express 11 is Metro only, but I am still curious if the new WinRT API allows non-Metro "desktop" apps.)

@phantom: The fact that not everything is suited to Metro is exactly the point being made by myself and others. We're disagreeing with this idea that Metro should be used for everything - that we should code for it, that it's the new paradigm, that desktop is deprecated etc. I know that Windows 8 isn't like that, and I know that's not necessarily what MS want (it's hard to know what they want). And if no one is saying that, I guess they should clarify what they really did mean smile.png


About the only annoying thing right now (well, in the preview version anyway) is that hitting start kills the whole primary monitor - it would be nice if you could set it to open on one side by default much like how you can drag an app to the side of the primary monitor and have it sit there while you use a standard desktop app on the rest.
Yes, it would be nice if something wasn't necessarily full screen only, when you didn't need that smile.png That's just what people have been saying.


You can still make desktop apps...Metro is locked down. Windows 8 is not.
See above - can we get clarification if the WinRT API supports both Metro and "desktop"?

Who cares? If you think that Mac OS or Linux will get anywhere near MS in OS users you need to wake up. Windows rules the PC. Apple rules the handhelds. If Vista didn't kill the Giant, nothing will. xD[/quote]Oh, I do agree (well, except as a side point to say that Android rules on handhelds ... at least I think, maybe things stack up differently if Ipod Touches and Ipads are lumped in with the smartphones). But anyhow, doesn't that go against your first point? Going to alternative systems like OS X or Linux isn't very helpful, if those systems are small.

"We need something new, this is new, therefore we should do this".[/quote]
Actually, yeah. Its Windows. Its new and runs better. Also, its Microsoft. You know, the guys who make Visual Studio? They also make video game consoles. And I'm thinking that Metro/WinRT or similar will be the new XNA for their next indie or pro stuff on the next Xbox. Probably future phones too and tablets and obviously the PC. So, why not?

What is so wrong about being first or at the start of a new "market" of an OS that have compatability with each other? And Metro apps will run on Intel/AMD and ARM CPU's.[/quote]I wasn't talking about Windows 8. The issue is only doing Metro - being "new" doesn't mean it's good for every purpose.

I have no clue what you are saying here...the Desktop will be there and so will Metro. What is the argument here? Its the same Windows 7 but better and with a new optional tablet style interface, <em>Optional!</em>.[/quote]As it should be! No one is arguing against Windows 8 as it's implemented. The argument is against those people saying "desktop" applications shouldn't be the norm anymore, and we should embrace the "new paradigm".

http://erebusrpg.sourceforge.net/ - Erebus, Open Source RPG for Windows/Linux/Android
http://conquests.sourceforge.net/ - Conquests, Open Source Civ-like Game for Windows/Linux

Advertisement

Still more than 1, then.

To add to Antheus's usability examples:

Someone might be writing an essay or report, whilst looking at information on Wikipedia. People might take a photo, want to crop it in an editor, then send it to Facebook. That's not to say there aren't other ways to do multitasking - my last example is an obvious smartphone example, which smartphones manage to do. But you do need to think about it, you can't just say "Oh, people only use one app at a time".

You can have 2 metro apps on screen at once. I don't know how it will translate to 2+ monitors yet (2 apps per screen?), but I'd imagine that would continue to be the case.

I think Windows 8 as implemented is great. I'm talking about the idea that we should all move to Metro and give up on "desktop" - is that what you meant when you talked about moving to a new paradigm, or did we misunderstand you?[/quote]
I meant the paradigm shift from a completely open software environment to a sand-boxed one paired with a single point of contact software store will result in a better quality of life for consumers and will result in more sales for us, developers. There are some UI and API problems, but on the whole the direction they are shifting in benefits all users of the platform; it's not nearly the clusterfuck it's made out to be.

My point was just that switching will be difficult, but it will result in a lot of significant gains for consumers and developers alike that more than offset the differences. I didn't mean to imply that Metro>Desktop. The amount of negativity towards Metro/winRT/VS express is disproportionate to the reality.

edit:
As it should be! No one is arguing against Windows 8 as it's implemented. The argument is against those people saying "desktop" applications shouldn't be the norm anymore, and we should embrace the "new paradigm".[/quote]
I don't think desktop applications should be the norm. They should still be used, but the vast majority of applications can be done well inside metro limitations. The only limitations I'm not a huge fan of atm are the background process restrictions, but those seem to be in a very liquid state.

If I were to put a split on it, I'd say it should be something like a 70/30 split in favor of metro vs desktop apps. The 30% would probably end up being productivity/development apps.
I meant the paradigm shift from a completely open software environment to a sand-boxed one paired with a single point of contact software store will result in a better quality of life for consumers and will result in more sales for us, developers. There are some UI and API problems, but on the whole the direction they are shifting in benefits all users of the platform; it's not nearly the clusterfuck it's made out to be.

My point was just that switching will be difficult, but it will result in a lot of significant gains for consumers and developers alike that more than offset the differences. I didn't mean to imply that Metro>Desktop. The amount of negativity towards Metro/winRT/VS express is disproportionate to the reality.[/quote]

Does Microsoft provide you with these canned answers or do you write them on your own? Are you full-time or just an evangelist who was bought with a free phone?

Because all your talk here is vaxing poetic about "quality of life for consumers", "single point of contact", "shifting benefits" - this is by the book PR talk.


As for better revenue - numbers disagree. Unless you have an established brand, such as Angry Birds (in which case you already received a paycheck), breaking into established mobile platforms as an indie is next to impossible without serious investment. So for indies or wannabe devs, it's worse, since there is much less emphasis on internet and viral marketing.

Does Microsoft provide you with these canned answers or do you write them on your own? Are you full-time or just an evangelist who was bought with a free phone?

Because all your talk here is vaxing poetic about "quality of life for consumers", "single point of contact", "shifting benefits" - this is by the book PR talk.

I have no affiliation with them whatsoever. All I know is that I'm a consumer and a developer, and I am well aware of the net benefit I will get being both of them.

As for better revenue - numbers disagree. Unless you have an established brand, such as Angry Birds (in which case you already received a paycheck), breaking into established mobile platforms as an indie is next to impossible without serious investment. So for indies or wannabe devs, it's worse, since there is much less emphasis on internet and viral marketing.
[/quote]
Yea. And unless you deal through a publisher you're locked to one platform (PC) as an indie developer, and even then if you plan on actually selling anything you'll probably have to go through Steam or try to find a physical distributor. Steam [probably] has better revenue for the average developer, but they also don't publish everything that gets submitted. Steam has 1,800 games, iOs has over 30,000; clearly it takes tons of investment.

To imply that you don't need serious investment without a single point of contact store, which I would consider Steam to be honestly, is foolish

Oh, I do agree (well, except as a side point to say that Android rules on handhelds ... at least I think, maybe things stack up differently if Ipod Touches and Ipads are lumped in with the smartphones). But anyhow, doesn't that go against your first point? Going to alternative systems like OS X or Linux isn't very helpful, if those systems are small.


To clarify myself, when I said that iOS rules the handheld, I ment in application sells. But yes, Android, I think, has more of a market.
---
I think the main question here, really, is if WinRT can be used to make Desktop apps. What I remember from the BUILD conference, which is very little, No. I don't think they were clear about that. You can use WinRT to make Metro apps with C++,C#, JavaScript, etc... Take this with a grain of salt. But then again, why wouldn't you be able to? They are just API's and DirectX11 is there for Desktop apps. WinRT runs on top of DX11 also.

All I care about is HTML5, JavaScript and Java. And Java runs on Windows 8 and the other browsers work on Windows 8. I mainly used the Desktop interface, but the Metro interface was just fine and simple. And everything ran better. It booted up in like 10 seconds on my 5 year old laptop. I want Windows 8 more than when I went from Vista to Windows 7! The only reason that I'm back on Win7 is because I wanted to try some games and they werent working on Win8. They installed, updated but did not run. So I switched back.


Yea. And unless you deal through a publisher you're locked to one platform (PC) as an indie developer, and even then if you plan on actually selling anything you'll probably have to go through Steam or try to find a physical distributor. Steam [probably] has better revenue for the average developer, but they also don't publish everything that gets submitted. Steam has 1,800 games, iOs has over 30,000; clearly it takes tons of investment.

To imply that you don't need serious investment without a single point of contact store, which I would consider Steam to be honestly, is foolish


Unless you are like the one in a million developer who makes a one in a million game that becomes popular by word of mouth. But, that's one in a million or two or three...or way more. And even then, you probably have to spend quite a bit! way2lazy2care just made one of the most realistic comments in the whole thread!

This topic is closed to new replies.

Advertisement