Will You Replace Programs for Apps When Updating to Windows 10?

[Salgoth]

For items that have a narrow specific use - probably.  For the bulk of what I use - nope.  maybe I'm showing my age but the current "App" craze reminds me of the "desktop widget" craze some years ago. 

[BajiRav]

Every one of those are true. 

Nope.

[MS Bob 11]

1. XAML is a markup language, not the language a program is written in. You can even use XAML with C++. That has nothing to do with it, never mind that being done that way actually gives you much better video performance over what's possible with the classic GUI stuff, which is unaccelerated and quite slow.

2. Sandboxed versus potentially unrestricted access to the entire system, a no brainer, never mind everything is updated all from the same place versus letting something rot because you forgot to grab an update.

3. So your fix is to just use a different OS?

1. Oh ok C++ and XAML seems to be supported for Windows Store apps in Windows 8 and Windows 10, it wasn't for Windows Phone 8. Anyway, there is no way to know for the end user which language a Metro app is developed in, is there?

2. This is about what matters to the user. Whether he would like to manually approve the app update to make sure some "improved" (dumbed down) version doesn't come to him. It doesn't mean the app will "rot". Calling it a no-brainer means taking control away from the end user and telling him to deal with it.

3. Absolutely. I already use it for a long time.

[Max Norris]

Anyway, there is no way to know for the end user which language a Metro app is developed in, is there?

Sure, and unless you're an experienced developer the same goes for classic software too, zero difference.

2. This is about what matters to the user. Whether he would like to manually approve the app update to make sure some "improved" (dumbed down) version doesn't come to him. It doesn't mean the app will "rot". Calling it a no-brainer means taking control away from the end user.

Good think it asks you if you want to automatically update them then versus hoping program X has an updater built in as is actually enabled. There's a difference between "taking control away" and "reading what's in front of your face." Besides, this is "in addition to", not "a replacement of". Choice is good and all that.

3. Absolutely. I already use it for a long time.

Having to rely on multiple devices and OS's when one can do it all is a sad excuse for a fix.

[Torolol]

I'm heavy users of emulator that requires Dynarec / JIT, and that currently only performs well for desktop program but not for metro apps.

So no updating for me.

[ParadiseLost]

I see little value in running mobile apps on my desktop, so as a general rule, no.

[MS Bob 11]

1. Sure, and unless you're an experienced developer the same goes for classic software too, zero difference.

2. Good think it asks you if you want to automatically update them then versus hoping program X has an updater built in as is actually enabled. There's a difference between "taking control away" and "reading what's in front of your face." Besides, this is "in addition to", not "a replacement of". Choice is good and all that.

3. Having to rely on multiple devices and OS's when one can do it all is a sad excuse for a fix.

1. The point is there is a way to determine if an app is written in managed code or native so the experienced user/developer can avoid the slower managed code app.

2. Not every developer discloses what's changed in the change log. They are sneaky and hide what's removed. e.g. Microsoft So again not full disclosure.

3. Ah now you've started judging what someone else prefers because it's not in line with your opinions.

[Max Norris]

1. The point is there is a way to determine if an app is written in managed code or native so the experienced user/developer can avoid the slower managed code app.

Yes, and like I said the same applies to desktop apps too, never mind there's plenty of managed programs out there that are exceptionally good.

2. Not every developer discloses what's changed in the change log. They are sneaky and hide what's removed. e.g. Microsoft So again not full disclosure.

And again, that's just like desktop apps.. being designed using Winforms/QT/WPF/Whatever versus modern doesn't automagically make it transparent what's been updated. Again, user's discretion.

3. Ah now you've started judging what someone else prefers because it's not in line with your opinions.

*shrug* Use it if you want, personally I prefer something a bit more efficient versus having to deal with multiple devices to do the same thing.. I wasn't judging anyone, just pointing out the obvious. You'd be honestly surprised how little I care about what other people run... just don't care for people assuming what they want is what everyone wants though.

[+Red King Subscriber²]

What incentive is there for companies to abandon Windows Vista and 7 and make Win Ten apps?

[MS Bob 11]

And again, that's just like desktop apps.. being designed using Winforms/QT/WPF versus modern doesn't automagically make it transparent what's been updated. Again, user's discretion.

 

I think there is a big difference. With desktop apps, you can update and go back to the old version if you have the installer. With Store apps, even though you can choose whether to update, once you do, there's no going back. If you discover something you hate later, you are stuck with it. That's a deal breaker.

[SledgeNZ]

 

- Apps look better? Hell no! That is subjective.

- Perform better? No they're slower because they're mostly written in XAML. User has no idea if the app is native code or managed unlike programs where you can easily determine if it relies on .NET.

- Usability of apps over programs? Far worse.

- Security? None of my desktop apps has been hacked ever.

- Scale better? Yes but I already have Android where apps are optimized for the specific display sizes I use

 

So apps replacing programs? No way in hell.

 

- Apps can't have multiple instances.

- No dragging and dropping data between two apps possible?

- Performance is extremely horrid.

- Usability is laughable, for both keyboard and mouse.

- Navigation is far far worse.

- App have inherently low information density due to touch optimized controls, UI dumbed down, very low utility and value in terms of features

- WinRT APIs not even remotely close to Win32 yet

- No remotely attractive feature in the UI, plus UI elements oversized for mouse usage.

- Programs have full manual control over updates in case some "improvements" arrive which will be forced on you

 

So when Windows 10 is forced on poor Windows 7 users, first thing to do is use PowerShell to uninstall all apps, change all defaults to desktop versions. And replace all Windows "improvements" with 3rd party desktop apps so functionality doesn't reduce every few years and UI isn't compromised every few years.

 

 

Wow so much mis-information listed there.

• UI can be styled to target touch or keyboard users.
• Yes perform better, I can compile core pieces of my store app to native code if needed (Wow, who would have thought?)
• Usability is down to the dev. I have store apps that work equally well with keyboard\mouse or touch.
• Apps can have a single instance with multiple views open.
• Drag and drop supported in Win10
• Performance is better if coded correctly. All win apps share a single UI thread however apps allow you to offload various built in rendering enhancements to another thread.
• Navigation is by the developer. A lot of the more successful store apps threw metro guidelines out the window (I.e. playback controls in the appbar were always a stupid idea)
• WinRT api's have full access to the win32 api if allowed by the end user. Look for new policies in Win10 similar to Silverlight asking for increased trust to use these. (This all currently works under store apps installed in the enterprise)
• You've repeated size of controls a number of times. The developer has complete control of this, can be made easily to look like a standard desktop app if needed.

[domboy]

I think there is a big difference. With desktop apps, you can update and go back to the old version if you have the installer. With Store apps, even though you can choose whether to update, once you do, there's no going back. If you discover something you hate later, you are stuck with it. That's a deal breaker.

 

Thank you! That's what I've been saying, and is my biggest grip with all these "app stores" I have no problem with software/package managers, and have been using them in various linux distributions. But most of them offer much better version control, and that is something seriously lacking in the current crop of stores. It seriously needs this. I have heard there are going to be console commands to interact with store app management, so I'm really hoping we will get a lot more flexibility and functionality than what the 8/8.1 store has. I also really think it needs to become more than just a place to buy apps, more of a software repository that you can also add third party installation sources to etc.

[HawkMan]

Every one of those are true. 

 

except, no. 

I feel like there should be /sarcasm at the end of "better security". Windows has been proven to have the WORST security, out of all Operating Systems.

 

Actually, quite the opposite. you know in real tests and such with actual evidence and not just random statements. 

1. Oh ok C++ and XAML seems to be supported for Windows Store apps in Windows 8 and Windows 10, it wasn't for Windows Phone 8. Anyway, there is no way to know for the end user which language a Metro app is developed in, is there?

2. This is about what matters to the user. Whether he would like to manually approve the app update to make sure some "improved" (dumbed down) version doesn't come to him. It doesn't mean the app will "rot". Calling it a no-brainer means taking control away from the end user and telling him to deal with it.

3. Absolutely. I already use it for a long time.

 

1: It's also irrelevant for the end user

2: it's rather about security. 

3: so why are you posting here...

I see little value in running mobile apps on my desktop, so as a general rule, no.

 

Good thing that windows 10 (not mobile) doesn't come with mobile apps then. 

[ParadiseLost]

 

Good thing that windows 10 (not mobile) doesn't come with mobile apps then. 

 

You're right. They only look and feel like mobile apps.

[greenwizard88]

I already do. The only exe's that I still run are games and programs that don't have a metro equivalent; e.g. Photoshop.

[DeusProto]

None. I can't drag n drop between them, I can't run more than one instance. I like to use F13-F24 keys via my Corsair K95 hardware event macro keys and no chance in hell Metro apps will support that. I like extensive context menus and verbose option panels both of which are lacking in Metro apps. I like small UI elements that save on screen real estate and I prefer to resize windows to very small - Metro apps cannot be resized lower than a hardcoded limit. 

[C:Amie]

hahaha. No. If I wanted to turn my

[HawkMan]

You're right. They only look and feel like mobile apps.

 

No they don't

[ParadiseLost]

No they don't

 

You might want to tell Microsoft then. They're creating apps meant for tablets that are not really mobile apps!

[LaP]

If the apps are as bad as the Windows 8 ones no.

[MS Bob 11]

• UI can be styled to target touch or keyboard users.
• Yes perform better, I can compile core pieces of my store app to native code if needed (Wow, who would have thought?)
• Usability is down to the dev. I have store apps that work equally well with keyboard\mouse or touch.
• Apps can have a single instance with multiple views open.
• Drag and drop supported in Win10
• Performance is better if coded correctly. All win apps share a single UI thread however apps allow you to offload various built in rendering enhancements to another thread.
• Navigation is by the developer. A lot of the more successful store apps threw metro guidelines out the window (I.e. playback controls in the appbar were always a stupid idea)
• WinRT api's have full access to the win32 api if allowed by the end user. Look for new policies in Win10 similar to Silverlight asking for increased trust to use these. (This all currently works under store apps installed in the enterprise)
• You've repeated size of controls a number of times. The developer has complete control of this, can be made easily to look like a standard desktop app if needed.

 

UI can be styled to target touch or keyboard users, yes but it is not really the most efficient UI which tries to target both touch and traditional mouse/keyboard because the information density needs to be varied too to accommodate the amount of scrolling required, for the layout to fit on the various display sizes, resolutions, to reduce the distance the mouse needs to travel, to reduce the tabbing required for keyboards. Usability is down to the dev yet if Microsoft's own built-in Windows 10 apps are so dismal at usability and performance of Windows 8 or Windows 10 apps is also not so great compared to native apps, I don't have much hope for other devs doing a better job. The controls, colors and UX guidelines themselves that are used in Metro are not very usability friendly. Yes, they not unusable, they're just less usable.

 

The failure of Windows 8, and Apple not mixing touch with keyboard/mouse machines are precisely about understanding this. If there are too many compromises involved like a massive reduction in functionality and usability, just don't do it by ruining the experience only to make one OS run on all differently-sized screens. No one else in the industry is doing that to their customers. Eventually apps just aren't a good enough experience to replace programs except for users with very basic needs.

[+Asmodai MVC]

I'm looking forward to Win10 and will be upgrading from Win7 but I have no intention of replacing any of my existing programs with an app. (that doesn't mean it won't happen just that I don't currently plan to do it for any particular program).

I voted "A Nominal Few" though because I'm sure I'll use calculator and such that will likely be apps that come with the OS and their program equivalents I suspect will no longer be available.  If the program version IS there though I'll likely use it.

I can't think of a situation where I'd pick a non-MS app over a program though and I suspect few, if any, of the third party developed programs I use will move exclusively to apps.

[Tuskd]

It all boils down to a well coded app. Yes it can replace a program and the growth of mobile devices used for "serious" applications that once used to be done only on desktops is the proof for this. Microsoft embraced the radical concept of apps in desktops for Windows 8. Sure they were not blindly going behind a pointless strategy, there would have been research and analysis. They either knew that apps were the future and they wanted to capitalize on it early, or they wanted to create a trend that didn't exist. Whatever it was, the execution was not proper and received backlash. But still continuing the concept in Windows 10 means that there is still scope for apps to replace traditional programs. Just because no one else is doing this doesn't mean that its not right. They still need to perfect this model and that takes time and proper execution. 

[margrave]

Probably not.

 

If it works, don't fix it.

 

To me app, being short for application, is just a new marketing term for program. They're the same thing. Just run a little different is all. For no real reason than to try to sell the same old thing again since the industry is out of ideas. Just like Hollywood. . . sad. . .

[Ci7]

What incentive is there for companies to abandon Windows Vista and 7 and make Win Ten apps?

 

 

you can scratch Windows Vista , it is no longer relvent barely hold 2% of the market

and extended support  is due to expire next year for it.

 

and the apps for Win10 would run in Win8 no?

 

would remain to be seen how fast Win10 growth would be later this year and the next