The answer is, clearly, Qt. (This isn't even a joke. Assuming you're not going Electron.) Part of the reason here is that it's their main business. They can't afford letting it languish and/or changing direction every 6 months.
Microsoft hasn't had a coherent GUI strategy since Petzold
521–530 of 604 posts
Re: Microsoft hasn't had a coherent GUI strategy since Petzold
#522Earlier quoted context omitted.
We might contrast that with Slack, yes? This thread comes to mind: https://www.0xsid.com/blog/wont-download-your-app With Slack that’s trivial, Telegram impossible.
Except Telegram Desktop is opensource and they also have full-functional Web version. But tdesktop is really well-made Qt piece of software, snappy, feature-rich and multi-platform.
Re: Microsoft hasn't had a coherent GUI strategy since Petzold
#523> Dead silence. One person suggested WPF. Another said WinUI 3. A third asked if they should just use Electron. The meeting went sideways and we never did answer the question. > That silence is the story. These LLMs are just awful at writing.
>introduced a level of cognitive complexity that makes Kierkegaard read like Hemingway.
and I fucking lost it.
Re: Microsoft hasn't had a coherent GUI strategy since Petzold
#524It is a fantastic book, I learned everything I know on Win32 from it. Wrote real time scientific software in windows for ~10y! We did it all, external hardware control, custom UIs, etc. Thanks Ryan Geiss for your timing info.
Right about VC6 was the sweet spot imo, C/C++ with lightning fast UI for docs and more. Tools got out of the way. Once other languages got involved (C#?) the docs got out of control and harder to use, and the UI started to get a little overloaded.
The snappiness of those old windows systems was pretty great.
Re: Microsoft hasn't had a coherent GUI strategy since Petzold
#525Steven Sinofsky wrote this piece a couple of weeks ago about the same topic: https://x.com/stevesi/status/2036921223150440542
In the ideal world, Win32 applications would have automatically run in a sandboxed WinRT environment with granular permissions. A program thinks it's accessing a USB webcam, but it is actually accessing a Win32 shim that goes to the WinRT that first prompts the user to obtain the necessary permission and then goes to the real Win32 USB API to interface with the camera. A program is trying to access a file that hasn't been selected in the "Open file" dialog or dragged into it or passed as a command line argument? Raise a "malicious access" warning.
Overly complicated programs like antiviruses would have been able to get a "hall pass", either by registering their builds with Microsoft or asking for an administrator-level exception.
Of course, this would've been terribly hard to implement. Doing it natively would be supremely complicated, much harder than just designing a whole new userland API like WinRT. And sandboxing every application in something similar to Sandboxie would've been too taxing on the PCs from that time.
Re: Microsoft hasn't had a coherent GUI strategy since Petzold
#526What I find must puzzling is that everyone seems to just be violating basic rules that had been in place for ages. Things like: - If you can't respond to a UI event wait until you can - Menus should be tree structures - Pressing alt should underline the hotkeys you need to access anything clickable As well as just basic responsiveness or predictability. A 2000 era windows application may not have been pretty, and may…
This is one that I hold my devs accountable for. No, I shouldn't have "put it in the spec", because it is the fucking spec.
Re: Microsoft hasn't had a coherent GUI strategy since Petzold
#527Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel that some people are just too old to get used to the swipe based ui. I mean friends of mine who just keep buying the only phones with (screen based) back and home buttons.
I'm in that group. It's not "getting used to", I feel like that gesture is less practical. It involves or using the "circle" to assist on how to use the gesture (creating a black void on the screen that you need to plan your use of the phone around) or having the swipe that 1) is not as reliable in my opinion and 2) can be triggered accidentally For me is like claiming that touch screens on cars are the future and pe…
Swipes are of course nice because they allow for the same interactions without taking any screen real-estate. And I have to say it quite consistent across the iOS apps I use.
Re: Microsoft hasn't had a coherent GUI strategy since Petzold
#528Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, a striking difference between windows and linux at this point is that the linux UI frameworks are hyper stable. If I want to make a linux desktop app, I'll choose QT or GTK. Heck, if I want to make a windows and macOS app, I'll probably choose QT or GTK. What do I chose with Windows? Who knows. It literally changes every time I look into it. That's just insane. It's gotten so bad that probably the right way to…
GTK 2, GTK 3, or GTK 4?
The problem microsoft has is instead of making "Win32, but with these extentions or these APIs removed", heck even as a separate "framework". What they did instead was "You know what's hot right now? XML. So let's make an XML based UI framework. Actually, it's javascript and css, so let's do that. Actually, people really like electron so let's do that."
That is to say, it is possible and I dare say easy to migrate an application from GTK 3 to GTK 4. It's basically impossible to migrate a WPF app to UWP. You have to rewrite the whole thing.
Re: Microsoft hasn't had a coherent GUI strategy since Petzold
#529Earlier quoted context omitted.
Package Identity isn't that different from Signed COM Registration of the ancient past. Microsoft built up a lot of dislike from it by building it "sandbox-first", but the core of it still isn't that different from COM's ancient footpaths, at least to the COM diehards that hate .NET and didn't learn near enough from .NET's battles with the same things in terms of package signing, CAS (Code Access Security), and the G…
There are still some things that are still locked in the UWP world that I wish were not. For example, Windows classic desktop apps still have no equivalent to the UWP app lifecycle. Your UWP app's processes can be suspended and resumed without you writing code to force the suspension and request when to be resumed later. Instead, you are expected to appropriately handle event notifications for suspend, resume, and th…
That relates to some of my criticism that maybe UWP could have used more .NET veterans because that was one of the problems with the CAS sandbox. For the most part the CAS sandbox was "opt-in" and yeah software developers through ego, hubris, and everything else will most often declare "my app/library is a special snowflake and needs access to everything!" So even if things opt-in to additional security controls like CAS, no one tests or builds for Production in a CAS sandbox so even things that claimed to support CAS threw runtime exceptions all over the place to the point no one could trust CAS to the point were CAS died for being practically useless overhead because no one both opted in and knew how to test it.
UWP had a lot of good ideas. It's insistence that it didn't have much to learn from .NET's mistakes was not one of them.
Re: Microsoft hasn't had a coherent GUI strategy since Petzold
#530Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nadella thought he could take the reins and start yelling “Cloud! Cloud! Cloud!” and that would be successful. He doesn’t have a strategy and now that’s becoming apparent.
He had a strategy and it worked very well. But every strategy must be updated. It's basic BCG matrix stuff every MBA graduate knows by heart: sooner or later your star product becomes a cash cow and then a dog. To keep your company growing, you need to identify your next potential stars among question marks, boost them with cash from the cash cows, put competent managers in charge and remove those who get in the way.…