Petition to Stop windows 10 UWP

[captain_to_fire]

15 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

You have great examples that Microsoft release showcasing UWP, you have Groove, Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Maps, Edge, and well everything else in Windows 10 modernized apps.

Just like how Office 2019 will be a Windows 10 exclusive and will lack any traditional executable .exe or .msi file. It will piss of many people but for the most part, Office is backwards compatible as long as the file doesn't use the new exclusive features and this has been the way Microsoft has been doing it for years. 

 

https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/1/16960640/microsoft-office-2019-windows-10-support

 

19 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

UWP is pretty powerful, and keep getting more and more powerful.

I don't possess the technical know-how to prove or debunk this other than my experience with UWP apps like Netflix and LastPass so I'll leave it to others who has the technical know-how, but I think Win32 is here to stay for the years to come. I can't see Google or Mozilla just yet porting their browsers to the Store nor do I see Adobe and AutoCAD making a UWP app of their pro applications any time soon nor does my preferred VPN app have any UWP equivalent. While the Microsoft Store's apps are growing, I think for the most part it's not yet on par with Google Play Store much less the Apple App Store so I don't know how can Microsoft pull the strings of devs to port their apps to the store.

 

Also, the Spotify app from the Microsoft Store is terrible when using a touchscreen PC.

[AshleyAshes]

22 minutes ago, explorer.exe said:

I'll discuss with you

ignoring the mean comments

 

 

But the universal windows platform is great (at least in my opinion)! I mean, just imagine the potential! and while yes, it does have it's flaws (mainly the app store), It's still a great idea!

I'm not against the idea, I'm against their approach.

 

 

Here we have what appears to be a petition based on an interface issue. It's kinda like saying you don't like the taste of McD's because of the color of the staff uniforms.

I don't feel like a dinosaur, also I'm not complaining only about the interface.

 

 

its not like they are going to force every user to a version of 10 that only uses UWP apps

I know this, but don't you feel bad about slowly being pushed towards this direction?

 

 

OP, UWP is garbage and should rarely if ever be used, but a petition won't help. It's a waste of time.

It's more productive to just avoid it for now.
I'm trying bro, but I hate the fact that the system is slowly becoming uwp

 

 

 

unless i'm mistaken the UWP app allows Netflix to make 1 app that works on both Windows 10 and Xbox One consoles which means less app development costs and fewer apps to maintain, which is a good thing in my book.

 

their approach is the worst that they could've chosen, think about linux cross compile feature

it works like a charm producing the same code for different architectures.

C is the same be your pc ARM or x86 (i'm not talking about asm, I know that someone will say this)

 

I don't understand the mania to "petition" to private companies

I know that this won't force them, but I made it in a way of expression, if a lot people had signed up for it they might see this and maybe change their approach

but I expected that no one would sign

 

RorzNZ

i know that feeling too haha but it's not about this

I see windows 10 as the best windows ever made being slowly killed by things like forcing you to use uwp apps

 

 

the petition if at all should rather focus on keeping x86 support or whatever is bothering you. uwp itself should stay and get developed further

 

I agree with you, my problem is being forced towards uwp, like control panel, garbage apps installed automatically, no option to disable them

once I deleted cortana app and realized that if it's missing it activates a kill switch that makes a translucent layer appear on top of the start menu. everything is still there but the clicks are blocked.

the idea is good but their approach couldn't possibly be worse

instead of just leaving the developers a stable environment that just needed a cross compile they are forcing you to use uwp

cross compiling would even make the program faster for all users

why does the uwp apps need to keep running forever on the background?

where are them located?

am I stuck to windows store?

btw, as a developer would you rely on that?

why does even the calculator needs to be UWP? now even that is slow to open.

 

don't like the apps don't use them/uninstall them. Who cares!

what about the system apps that are now UWP? how am I supposed to uninstall them?

and what about the fact when you update your windows and they come back?

they even set theirselves as default (music app at least)

 

microsoft just cares about locking everyone to their store so you can only sell things through there and so them can take their slice

if this continue we will need to root windows in the future in order to have access to system folders

Holy shit, learn how to use the quote function.  OR AT LEAST PUT THE QUOTES IN "QUOTATION MARKS".  While we're at it, maybe capitalise the first word of a sentence.

 

You are clearly a horrible person. D:

[explorer.exe]

2 minutes ago, AshleyAshes said:

You are clearly a horrible person. D:

only because I didn't quoted?

sorry, I was on my phone

[GoodBytes]

33 minutes ago, explorer.exe said:

their approach is the worst that they could've chosen, think about linux cross compile feature

Sorry, you can't make that possible, unless you build Java. We have Java already, why build it again, which you know it will be inferior no matter who works on it, due to teh massive amount years Java is in the works.

 

33 minutes ago, explorer.exe said:

it works like a charm producing the same code for different architectures.

C is the same be your pc ARM or x86 (i'm not talking about asm, I know that someone will say this)

Actually, doesn't mean you make a UWP app that it will run under ARM Windows either. It still needs to be compiled by the developer.

 

 

33 minutes ago, explorer.exe said:

I agree with you, my problem is being forced towards uwp, like control panel, garbage apps installed automatically, no option to disable them

So you don't like change, just because it is different?  Not being mean, but that is what I am getting here.

The problem with the Settings panel is that it is all in the works as things are ported over. Once everything is ported, a better structure of where to place what can be better set, and you can see this with every version of Windows 10. Compare Settings panel from Windows 10 at release to now, and it now is better. I't snot excellent, as they are still many things to port and do, but better than before.

 

33 minutes ago, explorer.exe said:

once I deleted cortana app and realized that if it's missing it activates a kill switch that makes a translucent layer appear on top of the start menu. everything is still there but the clicks are blocked.

That has nothing to do with UWP

 

33 minutes ago, explorer.exe said:

the idea is good but their approach couldn't possibly be worse

If Cortana bugs you, then I have some good news. Things will change. I don't know when if its next version or the following. But Cortana is being experimented to be in the Action Center instead of the search.

 

33 minutes ago, explorer.exe said:

instead of just leaving the developers a stable environment that just needed a cross compile they are forcing you to use uwp

How so? You can make a Win32 ARM version of your program for Windows 10 for ARM.

 

33 minutes ago, explorer.exe said:

cross compiling would even make the program faster for all users

I guess you mean across Linux and Windows, in that case, absolutely not. You are introducing a thick layer of API conversions. And Linux doesn't work the same way as Windows in so many different things that even API translations is not even enough on many things. And you don't have 1-to-1 API translation either.

 

 

33 minutes ago, explorer.exe said:

why does the uwp apps need to keep running forever on the background?

Suspended state. Like your phone. Nothing is closed. The logic goes, why do you need to use your SSD or HDD when you leave the app partially loaded to accelerate future loading. You'll re-open the app eventually.

 

33 minutes ago, explorer.exe said:

where are them located?

C:\Users\<Account Name>\AppData\Local\Packages

 

33 minutes ago, explorer.exe said:

am I stuck to windows store?

No. You can download and install UWP outside like normal Win32 programs. The option is in Settings > Update & Security > Developer Mode. You'll notice that Side-Loading is enabled by default.

 

33 minutes ago, explorer.exe said:

btw, as a developer would you rely on that?

why does even the calculator needs to be UWP? now even that is slow to open.

UWP is more involved than Win32. They are a lot of layers, and uses the GPU as well to draw the interface. Yes, "it is more than a calculator needs", But you can say the same with Win32 app of calculator, compared to Win16 (Pre-Windows 95  platform), compared to MS-DOS

 

 

33 minutes ago, explorer.exe said:

don't like the apps don't use them/uninstall them. Who cares!

I care, I like the new features over the old one, and I actually it a lot. Easy once a day on average.

 

 

33 minutes ago, explorer.exe said:

what about the system apps that are now UWP? how am I supposed to uninstall them?

Default apps, as always, can't be removed officially. You can't remove WMP12, calculator, Notepad, Wordpad or IE on older versions of Windows.

 

33 minutes ago, explorer.exe said:

and what about the fact when you update your windows and they come back?

they even set theirselves as default (music app at least)

It doesn't. It only does when your other app doesn't register the app properly following Microsoft documentation.

 

 

33 minutes ago, explorer.exe said:

microsoft just cares about locking everyone to their store so you can only sell things through there and so them can take their slice

if this continue we will need to root windows in the future in order to have access to system folders

That won't happen for soo many reasons, but I'll challenge you: Is that a problem with your Android phone or tablet or iPhone or iPad?

 

[Misanthrope]

I think this petition is putting the cart before the horse a bit: Other than the already failed Windows RT or whatever it was called, as long as you can keep using x32 and x32_64 apps normally there's nothing to complain.

 

Otherwise you sound like "Let's remove a optional new thing I don't like because I don't like it" well it's optional so don't use it.

 

Now if you want to make the argument that Windows wants to eventually phase out traditional apps in favor of UWP you'd be correct, but you have to wait until more overt measures are taken like "Microsoft just paid Adobe to stop supporting and releasing normal apps, it's all UWP now" or something equally bad like breaking current functionality of standard apps today.

 

The chromebook ripoff they're trying could be a potential, more overt move but even then it's hardware specific and you wouldn't want to run many non-UWP apps on such low specs anyways.

[LAwLz]

8 hours ago, cluelessgenius said:

i love the idea and have as of now not seen any downside of it.

What about:

1) Very limited functionality.

2) Not cross platform compatible, except for Xbone and Windows 10, which is fairly pathetic compared to what you can do with other tool kits.

3) Only supports a few select languages.

4) Significantly lower performance compared to what is possible with more traditional programs.

 

 

8 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

UWP is pretty powerful, and keep getting more and more powerful. You have great examples that Microsoft release showcasing UWP, you have Groove, Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Maps, Edge, and well everything else in Windows 10 modernized apps. Now it might not be your liking, but they are fine apps. Nothing goes and says "I can't do it, because UWP doesn't allow me to" type of thin. I mean yes, you can't have fixed size window, have admin privileges, and do what it wants on the registry, because of the sandboxes environment it is in, and also would break UWP aspect. But it's not like "Oh I can't play video, as everything blocks me in doing that" type of thing.

 

The things you listed are not exactly examples of "powerful" programs. They are essentially apps you can find on iOS too, and I don't think anyone will say iOS APIs are powerful compared to let's say win32 or even what's available on MacOS.

 

Actually, you can't even write the video player I use as an UWP program. It relies on external filters and plugins, which is not possible with UWP.

Hell, third party developers can't even develop their own browsers. Microsoft gave themselves special privileges in order to develop Edge as an UWP program. They don't allow third party developers the same freedoms. In fact, you are not allowed to make a browser with UWP. Everything has to be based on Edge. Not that making something like Chrome or Firefox would be possible anyway. The UWP architecture doesn't allow for such complex programs as far as I know, which spawns multiple processes, has their own sets of APIs for extensions to hook into, and things like that.

[LAwLz]

7 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

Sorry, you can't make that possible, unless you build Java. We have Java already, why build it again, which you know it will be inferior no matter who works on it, due to teh massive amount years Java is in the works.

You can make things cross compatible without using Java. Ever heard of Qt? Vulcan? Python? C11 (if you limit yourself to the standard libraries)? POSIX? The list goes on.

 

 

7 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

So you don't like change, just because it is different?  Not being mean, but that is what I am getting here.

I think you need to read his post again. He said that he doesn't like the settings app, which you seem to agree with (by saying that it will be better in the future but it has a lot of work left) and he said that he doesn't like a bunch of garbage apps being installed. I don't think either one of these arguments indicates that "you just don't like change!".

 

7 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

I guess you mean across Linux and Windows, in that case, absolutely not. You are introducing a thick layer of API conversions. And Linux doesn't work the same way as Windows in so many different things that even API translations is not even enough on many things. And you don't have 1-to-1 API translation either.

No? Using the same syntax for APIs does not require a bunch of API compatibility layers (which is what I assume you mean by "API conversions").

Just use the same names for the function and make sure the output is the same. No compatibility layers needed. That's how standard libraries for languages like C has worked since forever, and there is no performance drawback to it at all.

You keep all the performance, and it is cross platform compatible.

 

7 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

It doesn't. It only does when your other app doesn't register the app properly following Microsoft documentation.

Or when Windows decides that "something went wrong".

It seems like a fairly common issue people have even with programs that do follow Microsoft's documentation. I've had Firefox (the same version) not replaced by Edge as the default web browser on my laptop over and over, while the same version worked just fine on my desktop. I even installed them on the same day using the same installer (did a reinstall of Firefox on both computers when version 58 landed).

 

7 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

That won't happen for soo many reasons, but I'll challenge you: Is that a problem with your Android phone or tablet or iPhone or iPad?

I would argue that it would be a problem if Android was as locked down as Windows 10S, yes.

Luckily for me, it isn't. 

 

I agree with most of the other things you wrote.

[AresKrieger]

Has a petition ever actually stopped a company or government from doing anything? If you actually want to make MS take notice don't use windows 10, the smaller that market share is the more MS sweats

[aezakmi]

Bring back DOS!

Quote

used windows photo viewer to quickly see photos, but now also this is slow

or maybe it's time to upgrade ye olde celeron mate

I click on photos and -woosh- there, instantly on screen, and oh boy I do have a ton of photos on that folder, installed w10 on a 8 year old rig and everything works, it's not like I own a 20 core cpu and 64 gigs ram but using "UWP apps are slow" as an argument is with all due respect just crap, and afaik cpl and paint are still there

[GoodBytes]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

Actually, you can't even write the video player I use as an UWP program. It relies on external filters and plugins, which is not possible with UWP.

VLC has no problem achieving that. Runs on my Windows 10 Mobile phone even.

 

 

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

Hell, third party developers can't even develop their own browsers. Microsoft gave themselves special privileges in order to develop Edge as an UWP program.

You can... but not distribute it through the Store, sadly, due to MS policy. UWP doesn't block you from building one to my knowledge.

 

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

The UWP architecture doesn't allow for such complex programs as far as I know, which spawns multiple processes, has their own sets of APIs for extensions to hook into, and things like that.

True. You can't do that today.

[GoodBytes]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

You can make things cross compatible without using Java. Ever heard of Qt? Vulcan? Python? C11 (if you limit yourself to the standard libraries)? POSIX? The list goes on.

OpenGL/Vulcan is for the graphic APIs, you still need a "foundation" that a program is develop on.

 

And all of those aren't the point of UWP. You want UWP to be cross platform. It isn't. It is Universal to Windows 10 Platforms, as the name implies. Meaning: Windows 10 IoT, desktop, laptop, tablets running Windows 10, Windows 10 Mobile (which is in end of life), HoloLens, and XBox One series of systems.

 

It is a sandbox platform that a developer can choose to implement their app in various ways. From Win32 container app. To a full native UWP app which includes GUI which is high-DPI aware, touch aware, pen aware, with pen and tip inking support, GPU accelerated.

 

Quote

I think you need to read his post again. He said that he doesn't like the settings app, which you seem to agree with (by saying that it will be better in the future but it has a lot of work left) and he said that he doesn't like a bunch of garbage apps being installed. I don't think either one of these arguments indicates that "you just don't like change!".

Sure it does. It is different. He didn't explain any details why the new apps and Settings panel is bad from a design point of view.

 

Quote

No? Using the same syntax for APIs does not require a bunch of API compatibility layers (which is what I assume you mean by "API conversions").

Oh ok. I never knew that Windows APIs and Linux API are the same APIs coded by the same people, and works identically in every single way. Good to know.

 

Quote

Just use the same names for the function and make sure the output is the same. No compatibility layers needed. That's how standard libraries for languages like C has worked since forever, and there is no performance drawback to it at all.

Sure and the Linux network stack is the same as Windows. Same for the registry.

 

Quote

Or when Windows decides that "something went wrong".

It seems like a fairly common issue people have even with programs that do follow Microsoft's documentation. I've had Firefox (the same version) not replaced by Edge as the default web browser on my laptop over and over, while the same version worked just fine on my desktop. I even installed them on the same day using the same installer (did a reinstall of Firefox on both computers when version 58 landed).

I can't find anything in the Feedback hub on this issue. But if you face a problem. Post it there with details, and maybe it might get fix in the future version of Windows.

 

Quote

I would argue that it would be a problem if Android was as locked down as Windows 10S, yes.

Luckily for me, it isn't. 

Excellent, we agree that isn't a problem then.

 

[LAwLz]

2 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

VLC has no problem achieving that. Runs on my Windows 10 Mobile phone even.

The UWP VLC version is very cut down compared to the full version, and even then VLC isn't as flexible as MPC-HC pr mpv (thanks to external filters).

 

2 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

You can... but not distribute it through the Store, sadly, due to MS policy. UWP doesn't block you from building one to my knowledge.

Hm, that might be true but I haven't looked into it enough to say for sure.

Might just be a stupid policy from Microsoft, or it might be limitations in UWP.

 

2 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

OpenGL/Vulcan is for the graphic APIs, you still need a "foundation" that a program is develop on.

Which is why I mentioned Qt, among other things. You're a developer so I assume you know about Qt. Electron is another example.

Electron has a lot of drawbacks compared to low level languages too, but I think it caters to the same kind of projects which might end up as an UWP project.

 

2 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

And all of those aren't the point of UWP. You want UWP to be cross platform. It isn't. It is Universal to Windows 10 Platforms, as the name implies. Meaning: Windows 10 IoT, desktop, laptop, tablets running Windows 10, Windows 10 Mobile (which is in end of life), HoloLens, and XBox One series of systems.

For being something called "universal", it sure isn't available on a lot of platforms.

But yes, I understand that UWP isn't meant to be portable. It's "universal" to some Microsoft platforms.

Anyway, you're getting off track.

Here is how the conversation went:

explorer.exe: Being able to compile it once for both Windows 10 and Xbox One is good, but think about Linux support.

You: In order to make that work you need Java, and what's the point of reinventing Java?

Me: You don't need Java. There are several portable platforms you can develop on.

You: The point of UWP isn't to be compatible with other OSes.

 

Yes, we get that the point of UWP wasn't to be compatible with other OSes. It was meant to be compatible with Microsoft products. But if you are designing something with the intention of helping developers reuse code when targeting other platforms, why limit it to your own platforms? If you really are out to help developers then you should make it truly portable. Otherwise your intentions just comes off as self serving rather than to help developers.

 

 

2 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

It is a sandbox platform that a developer can choose to implement their app in various ways. From Win32 container app. To a full native UWP app which includes GUI which is high-DPI aware, touch aware, pen aware, with pen and tip inking support, GPU accelerated.

I think that when people talk about UWP programs, they mean what you refer to as "full native UWP apps". They don't mean a win32 program in a UWP wrapper.

The whole thing with UWP wrappers is that it completely defeats the purpose of UWP, since the code isn't platform independent.

 

2 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

Sure it does. It is different. He didn't explain any details why the new apps and Settings panel is bad from a design point of view.

Stop with the strawman arguments. He said he disliked the new settings menu. That's it. He never said anything more or less. You're the one saying he doesn't like it because it's new. He might have several reasons for not liking it which are completely unrelated to it being new. I certainly have lots of complains, and judging by your post it seems like you do too.

 

2 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

Oh ok. I never knew that Windows APIs and Linux API are the same APIs coded by the same people, and works identically in every single way. Good to know.

Hey look, another strawman argument!

I thought you were a developer. Don't you know that C includes 29 (as of 2011) standard library files such as stdio.h which contain functions specified in the C standards? They are defined in specific ways to ensure that they are named a certain way, and input and output is the same regardless of platform.

You also got OS specific implementations of certain things. printf is one of the standard function in C. It works the same on all platforms. Input and output are specified in the standard to ensure compatibility. It works on Windows too, without any modifications.

Microsoft has also introduced their own functions and if you use those you won't be able to target another platform and have it work without modifications. But as long as you stick to the standard libraries then it should work fine.

 

You really don't need a bunch of compatibility layers to enable portability for code. You just need standards which are followed.

 

2 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

Sure and the Linux network stack is the same as Windows. Same for the registry.

Are you deliberately trying to misinterpret my posts? It certainly feels like you are.

But oh, you want access to the network stack? Here you go. A cross platform library for sockets.

"But that's abstraction!"

Good thing it's for a compiled language, so that any abstraction gets stripped away, right? Again, no compatibility layer needed.

 

As for the registry, aren't you against using that anyway? I mean, it really isn't needed. You might as well use .ini files, especially if you are concerned about portability.

 

 

2 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

I can't find anything in the Feedback hub on this issue. But if you face a problem. Post it there with details, and maybe it might get fix in the future version of Windows.

Not needed. The problem fixed itself after a few resets/restarts/days. Not sure what fixed the issue, but it got fixed without me updating neither Windows nor Firefox. It reset like 10 times on me before it stopped though.

 

2 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

Excellent, we agree that isn't a problem then.

We agree that it isn't a problem with Android.

I don't think we agree that it isn't a problem with Windows 10S.

Him: Microsoft just wants to lock everyone to their store (describing Windows 10S).

You: Is that a problem on your Android phone or iPhone?

Me: If Android phones were as locked down as Windows 10S, then yes it would be a problem.

 

It isn't a problem on Android because it isn't that locked down. Microsoft locking Windows down to only UWP and programs from the store would be a massive issue though. Even more so than if (I say if because it is currently not true) Android got locked down. That's because the use case for my desktop/laptop is completely different from my phone and tablet.

[Kherm]

[Sniperfox47]

13 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

UWP is pretty powerful, and keep getting more and more powerful. You have great examples that Microsoft release showcasing UWP, you have Groove, Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Maps, Edge, and well everything else in Windows 10 modernized apps. Now it might not be your liking, but they are fine apps. Nothing goes and says "I can't do it, because UWP doesn't allow me to" type of thin. I mean yes, you can't have fixed size window, have admin privileges, and do what it wants on the registry, because of the sandboxes environment it is in, and also would break UWP aspect. But it's not like "Oh I can't play video, as everything blocks me in doing that" type of thing.

The problems I personally have with UWP is not "it's not powerful!", It's that it's taken away so much choice from users and developers.

 

The UWP API set is incredibly constrained and it's incredibly difficult for Apps to make use of hardware APIs outside of those permitted by the UWP platform.

 

OpenCL, OpenGL, CUDA, Vulkan, ASIO, and many other industry standard interfaces are straight up not available through UWP period.

 

And the worst part is I don't hear any legitimate arguments against any of these facts. It's just "Well you can use our APIs!". Sorry Microsoft, but DirectCompute is hot trash and even with the latency improvements in Windows 10, DirectSound is still orders of magnitude higher in latency than ASIO. DirectX 11/12 are fine but they're also totally non-portable.

 

I mean for as locked down as Android is, at least I can use *industry standard* APIs with it.

[Salvasian]

2 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Yes, we get that the point of UWP wasn't to be compatible with other OSes. It was meant to be compatible with Microsoft products. But if you are designing something with the intention of helping developers reuse code when targeting other platforms, why limit it to your own platforms? If you really are out to help developers then you should make it truly portable. Otherwise your intentions just comes off as self serving rather than to help developers.

They are designing something with the intention of helping developers reuse code when targeting other platforms... the various platforms Microsoft either owns or wants to promote.  I have never seen anything officially produced by Microsoft saying that UWP is meant to assist with the development for all software for all platforms - if you think otherwise, please provide a link.

 

I would also say why should Microsoft try with UWP to assist other platforms?  They don't own those platforms or get any benefit from them prospering, so why should they invest their time and money into making programming easier for them?

[Sniperfox47]

7 hours ago, Salvasian said:

They are designing something with the intention of helping developers reuse code when targeting other platforms... the various platforms Microsoft either owns or wants to promote.  I have never seen anything officially produced by Microsoft saying that UWP is meant to assist with the development for all software for all platforms - if you think otherwise, please provide a link.

 

I would also say why should Microsoft try with UWP to assist other platforms?  They don't own those platforms or get any benefit from them prospering, so why should they invest their time and money into making programming easier for them?

Because it's a show of good faith to developers? Rather than looking at them and going "He he he he, come here little developer, look at this candy I have! Look I'll make your life easier! Look it'll all be so much be- Mhahahahaha you fell for my trap and now you can't escape! Your software is locked into our platform and only our platform with our proprietary APIs!".

 

The way they're promoting it comes off as incredibly manipulative and dishonest, especially since everything they've introduced with UWP could have been made compatible with Win32 rather than isolating them both as their own kernel interfaces to try and lock developers down.

 

Getting rid of legacy bloat is fine. It's great even. A+ for that. But trying to eliminate that bloat by manipulating users and developers into using a new platform that restricts them for no justified reason is a dick move.

[Bhav]

WHAT THEYRE REMOVING MY PRECIOUS MS PAINT?

 

HOW ELSE WILL I ENLARGE THE GENITALIA ON MY COLLECTION OF NAKED MEN PICS????

[NMS]

UWP is great. And I use it all the time, be it on my secondary Windows Phone or PC.

[Salvasian]

1 hour ago, Sniperfox47 said:

Because it's a show of good faith to developers? Rather than looking at them and going "He he he he, come here little developer, look at this candy I have! Look I'll make your life easier! Look it'll all be so much be- Mhahahahaha you fell for my trap and now you can't escape! Your software is locked into our platform and only our platform with our proprietary APIs!".

 

The way they're promoting it comes off as incredibly manipulative and dishonest, especially since everything they've introduced with UWP could have been made compatible with Win32 rather than isolating them both as their own kernel interfaces to try and lock developers down.

 

Getting rid of legacy bloat is fine. It's great even. A+ for that. But trying to eliminate that bloat by manipulating users and developers into using a new platform that restricts them for no justified reason is a dick move.

I am not being flippant when I say that I would love to live in a world where companies (and people for that matter) do things in good faith purely for the benefit of other people; unfortunately this is generally not the way that most companies operate and their primary motivator is to generate profit for their shareholders.  Developing products, at company expense in time and money, which equally benefit your competitors (and which could maybe be better for its competitors than Microsoft if they were to adopt what you are suggesting in this instance) would generally be considered to be against the best interests of the company and its shareholders.  If you (and the original poster for that matter) don't like the way that Microsoft is proceeding with UWP there is nothing stopping you from developing and promoting a competing platform which promotes the views you are espousing in your post (if you do, please let me know as I would be keen to support it).

 

You say that Microsoft is "manipulating users and developers", how exactly are they doing that and can you provide any links to official Microsoft announcements/documentation to support this statement (if you can, please provide them)?  I note that Microsoft in its own document describing what UWP is states:  "The Universal Windows Platform (UWP) is the app platform for Windows 10.  You can develop apps for UWP with just one API set, one app package, and one store to reach all Windows 10 devices - PC, tablet, phone, Xbox, HoloLens, Surface Hub and more."  (source:  https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/uwp/get-started/whats-a-uwp)  How is this manipulating users and developers in any way?  Developers are free to develop what they wish using the platform they wish, and users are free to use whatever software they choose to use.

[Xerora]

I think whats actually happening here is OP is genuinely 15 or 16 years old, and saw that daddy linus doesnt like UWP so he sought to create a petition so senpai will notice him.

 

Seriously tho, UWP is a great idea, but it isnt being executed as proper as one would hope.

[LAwLz]

1 hour ago, Xerora said:

Seriously tho, UWP is a great idea, but it isnt being executed as proper as one would hope.

I strongly disagree that UWP is a good idea.

I think it's a terrible idea no matter what angle you look at it from.

• Lock users into the Windows ecosystem - Bad
• Abandon established standards in favor of their own proprietary things - Bad
• Force "security" features which puts very big limits on what developers can and can't do - Bad
• Centralized repo controlled by Microsoft, where they decide what is and isn't allowed - Bad

[Lurick]

1 minute ago, LAwLz said:

I strongly disagree that UWP is a good idea.

I think it's a terrible idea no matter what angle you look at it from.

• Lock users into the Windows ecosystem - Bad
• Abandon established standards in favor of their own proprietary things - Bad
• Force "security" features which puts very big limits on what developers can and can't do - Bad
• Centralized repo controlled by Microsoft, where they decide what is and isn't allowed - Bad

Sounds like they took the book right from Apple and decided it was a perfect solution

[Xerora]

2 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I strongly disagree that UWP is a good idea.

I think it's a terrible idea no matter what angle you look at it from.

• Lock users into the Windows ecosystem - Bad
• Abandon established standards in favor of their own proprietary things - Bad
• Force "security" features which puts very big limits on what developers can and can't do - Bad
• Centralized repo controlled by Microsoft, where they decide what is and isn't allowed - Bad

As someone stated earlier UWP on full windows 10 desktops isn't going to completely close all loose ends. UWP is focused more towards lower end systems that can't run full windows OS, and the UWP in windows 10 full desktops and laptops is purely to sync between devices and run smaller apps on the larger platform. 

[yian88]

i agree that is bad but that petition, and the format lol, cant even take it as a joke

[LAwLz]

25 minutes ago, Xerora said:

As someone stated earlier UWP on full windows 10 desktops isn't going to completely close all loose ends. UWP is focused more towards lower end systems that can't run full windows OS, and the UWP in windows 10 full desktops and laptops is purely to sync between devices and run smaller apps on the larger platform. 

Do you really believe that? Because there is no evidence to support that idea.

In fact, according to the latest rumors Microsoft will actually incentivize OEMs to ship computers with win32 blocked. OEMs will pay less for the Windows licenses if they ship computers that can only install UWP programs out-of-the-box.

 

I believe Microsoft's long term plan is to replace win32 with UWP. It would certainly benefit Microsoft in many ways (and screw over their customers in many ways too).