Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft Announces Converter for Bringing Win32 Apps to the Windows Store

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 68 posts

Re: Microsoft Announces Converter for Bringing Win32 Apps to the Windows Store

#51

Post by Eyas »

bradleyjg wrote: post #37
bradford wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(disclaimer, I'm a Microsoft employee and this is only my opinion). There's an important distinction which often don't see discussed when this topic comes up: It can be very dangerous to install a program on your machine, but an 'app' comes with some assurance. People often think of the app store as a method for MS to grab your money, but in my opinion it fixes many of the installation/deployment problems that have e…

This sounds nice and reasonable, but I think it's a post hoc explanation that doesn't quite work. Look at the language in the linked article. It talks about converting my "Win32 apps" into "Universal Windows Platform apps". But those legacy programs aren't "apps" within the meaning you've laid out.

gp uses 'app' the way you did, presumably to mean UWP application. Win32 apps are "programs"/"applications" written using the Win32 api. I don't think there's anything post-hoc in the explanation other than the use of the word "app".

Re: Microsoft Announces Converter for Bringing Win32 Apps to the Windows Store

#52

Post by bitwize »

ridiculous_fish wrote: post #47

Let's say I'm building something like an IDE, where I'm not targeting Xbox or phones. Is UWP appropriate for me? Should I aim to be on the Windows Store?

It depends on the IDE; in particular, whether it competes with Microsoft's own line of business. Microsoft has historically had non-compete clauses in its dev tool EULAs. It was an EULA violation, for instance, to use Visual Studio to write a word processor, database, or spreadsheet program.

I don't know if it still holds for the cuddly "new" Microsoft... but tread carefully. Windows Store is curated and thus more restrictive than straight Win32 app development would be.

Re: Microsoft Announces Converter for Bringing Win32 Apps to the Windows Store

#53

Post by bitwize »

notatoad wrote: post #24
bradleyjg wrote: post #2

What ever happened to programs? Was there something about that word that terribly offended people? Too hard to type out? Is 'app' soon going to be replaced by some kind of pictogram? Enquiring minds want to know.

In my mind an app is a sandboxed, focused thing that lives in a single window and behind a single launcher icon. application or program or any other older term from before iOS introduced "apps" could be a collection of a half-dozen different entries in your start menu, or an application like GIMP that scatters a bunch of different windows around your screen. "App" implies a level of simplicity.

App has been short for "application" since at least the DOS days, when Lotus 1-2-3 was frequently called the PC's "killer app".

Re: Microsoft Announces Converter for Bringing Win32 Apps to the Windows Store

#54

Post by pierrebai »

I wish there would be more details. It reminds me of the very old Carbon Dater from Apple which used to tell you if your MacOS9 program ws compatible with Carbon on MacOSX and tell you exactly which OS function were gone, which were deprecated and what the alternatives for them were.

Is Centennial the same approach?

Or is it a wrapper around your app, taking your straight executable and just failing OS calls that are not supported and forbidden?

Re: Microsoft Announces Converter for Bringing Win32 Apps to the Windows Store

#55

Post by gh-lfneu28 »

maxxxxx wrote: post #41
KirinDave wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's true, but only because there isn't a great story in UWP for underlying services. Non-sandboxed applications and services are not a sustainable strategy anymore.

I wonder how long they'll stick to UWP. In 2 years they probably have another cool next thing.

Yeah, they dropped that .net thing in less than that .. oh wait

Re: Microsoft Announces Converter for Bringing Win32 Apps to the Windows Store

#56

Post by 0x0 »

cm3 wrote: post #45
0x0 wrote: post #5

It's weird to hear "win32" called "legacy". Last I checked everything from "wininit.exe" to "svchost.exe" to "winlogon.exe" were win32 (or win64) applications. Guess the entire base operating system is legacy! :O

What exactly is win64? The API is still called win32, even if used in a 64-bit executable. Can somebody explain it? Was there a failed win64 API attempt at some point like WinFS and other stuff?

https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb496995.aspx uses the "Win32" and "Win64" monikers. I assume it is basically win32 with some types extended to 64bits (memory pointers/handles/whatnot)

Re: Microsoft Announces Converter for Bringing Win32 Apps to the Windows Store

#57

Post by m_fayer »

ridiculous_fish wrote: post #47

Let's say I'm building something like an IDE, where I'm not targeting Xbox or phones. Is UWP appropriate for me? Should I aim to be on the Windows Store?

With this tool I don't see why you wouldn't want to be on the Windows Store, if you can deal with the sandbox.

UWP is another story. With UWP, you have to deal with the mobile-like app lifecycle of getting randomly suspended and/or shut down. This is a hassle to deal with but understandable on a mobile device. For something as heavy, complex, and background-processing intensive as an IDE, it doesn't make sense to me.

Re: Microsoft Announces Converter for Bringing Win32 Apps to the Windows Store

#58

Post by ant6n »

wlesieutre wrote: post #46
grokys wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even before the iPhone came out, people used the abbreviation "app" for "application". Source: I was around then ;)

True, especially with OS X having .app file extensions. I still called them "Applications" more often than not though.

Oh, so it's like a Mac thing. So why do we have to call Windows programs 'App'?

Re: Microsoft Announces Converter for Bringing Win32 Apps to the Windows Store

#59

Post by treebeard901 »

0x0 wrote: post #9
Aleman360 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, a lot of what you see in Windows 10 is running on top of UWP.

Some of the UI apps perhaps, but if you ripped out win32, I don't think you'd have a very usable machine left to log on to?

Windows 10 without Win32 would be comparable to iOS. Eventual root access lost on your "PC" and a cut for Microsoft from the store.

Re: Microsoft Announces Converter for Bringing Win32 Apps to the Windows Store

#60

Post by mikeash »

khedoros wrote: post #49
mikeash wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're decades late on this. "App" has been used as a shorthand way to refer to programs for a loooong time. Random example, Apple had an object oriented framework called MacApp in 1985.

To me, "app" was just short for "application", and it usually implied something more than a program. A program was more of an individual binary and its data files. An application could be a suite of programs; basically, it was a superset of "program" that could include multiple binaries acting toward a common purpose. An "App" (mobile-style) is a new word. It implies (again, to me) a sandboxed program with a simplifi…

It seems pretty constant to me. It has always meant a user-facing program that's largely self-contained. It's not synonymous with "program," but since this story is about converting stuff for the Windows Store, I think it's being used correctly here.
Post reply on HN