[icebraining]

The introductory phrase of UWP explains why they pushed it: "A Universal Windows Platform (UWP) app can run on any Windows-based device, from your phone to your tablet or PC". The point was getting more applications for their mobile platform by coaxing developers who might have otherwise built a desktop-only application. I'd say this new development is essentially an admission of defeat on mobile.

[flukus]

The problem is that it may take their desktop with it. The industry doesn't want to invest in a desktop windows app because there is no clear direction. WPF/Win32 etc seem to be getting deprecated, but UWP is too limited.

[youdontknowtho]

People who actually make money on windows development know that WPF and Win32 are not deprecated.

In fact, they don't really deprecate things. They may stop pushing something as the new hotness...but VB6 apps still run on windows. Those data access technologies that no one uses anymore...those still work on windows. If you are worried about your investment in time not being the new hotness, well that's one thing. If you are worried about your investment in effort being abandoned...they have done more to support backwards compatibility that I think is even reasonable.

[douche]

Silverlight may be the one glaring exception to that rule that I can think of. I don't think even IE or Edge support that anymore, which makes it dead.

I had an ex-girlfriend whose employer made a big bet on Silverlight for their web app platform... in 2012. Having to rewrite it all in HTML5 and JS a year later almost put them under.

[youdontknowtho]

Actually, this is really weird, but yeah, you can still use Silverlight. Until very recently the inTune portal still used Silverlight.

I dig what you are saying though. They had some very confused messaging about the web as a platform for a long time. They finally stopped the BS, though, and have gone whole hog on the web.

[jmkni]

Couldn't they have ported to WPF with a lot less effort?

[douche]

Possibly, but this was, if I recall correctly, sort of a web-based MOOC thingy, so being browser-based was important.

[emodendroket]

Silverlight was cross-platform.

[flukus]

I'm not worried about it dissapearing, I'm worried the modern teh stack will change (it has). Then you start to either lose talent or rebuild the app.

[youdontknowtho]

Do what now? Does that mean that I can't build apps in C++ anymore? Because it looks like I can and it also looks like I have more options than I ever have. In fact, I can finally use standard ISO c++ to do more than ever. Do you just mean one UI toolkit over another?

I wonder how Adobe has "kept talent" without rebuilding photoshop?

If you are worried about keeping your personal skills up to date and focused on an area that will earn you personally a living then you should know that some of the most highly paid people I've met in technology code for some of the most niche platforms. I mean serious f*ck off money. Say it with me...AS400. (Or ISeries or whatever the hell it's called now.)

[jasonkostempski]

"I wonder how Adobe has "kept talent" without rebuilding photoshop?"

By grabbing their users by the sack and demanding cash they don't deserve under threat of denying access to ones entire body of work.

[whiskahs]

They kind of did rebuild photoshop. And Acrobat. And pretty much every one of their products after the Creative Cloud move.

[youdontknowtho]

Still using C++ and Windows API's. Also, how many prior versions of Photoshop still run on Windows with no modification? Probably all of them.

[walterbell]

Using which tech stack?

[kodfodrasz]

UWP is limited as it is relatively new. The new (capabilities based) security model is clearly better than the old "if you are admin, you can do whatever you want" model. The old model was inadequate even at the start of the multimedia age, but it was not recognized until recently. The new sandboxed operation creates more portable and reproduceably operating apps.

The limitations will show, as more and more usecases will be attempted, and surely many will be addressed.

Personally I hope once the global filesystem concept will be gone, and apps will use isolated or shared storages where shared storage will get explicit access rights for each app/user it is shared with.

The old system had defaults originating from the single user non-multimedia usecases left over as a legacy, but currently we have so many things going on our computers, that privacy/security needs a rethinking of old concepts to cope with new challenges.

[userbinator]

Personally I hope once the global filesystem concept will be gone, and apps will use isolated or shared storages where shared storage will get explicit access rights for each app/user it is shared with

I very much hope not, since default and easy global sharing is what makes desktop OSs so very useful, and a lot of this sharing is spontaneous, creative, and ad-hoc. Besides, we already have things like filesystem permissions. By all means have a sandbox for "the untrusteds", but I don't want the equivalent of being forced into the "everything which is not explicitly allowed is forbidden" bureaucracy.

[kodfodrasz]

Filesystem permissions cannot be controlled on a per app level. I do not like the fact, that an installation of for example a game needs admin rights, and has every chance to access data it should not be able to do.

I see your point, that the current solution offers a simple (and vulnurable solution). This is why I have said that these challenges need to be addressed. The current solutions may not be the best, but for an evolution to start we need to make changes, and try different approaches.

[userbinator]

Filesystem permissions cannot be controlled on a per app level.

I thought that's how Android's filesystem permission works? Each app runs as its own "user", and the FS permission bits restrict what it can access. This is a common solution in the Unix world. The problem on Android is that the filesystem is relatively hidden, and there's no easy way to change those permissions to allow more or less access.

Perhaps having the user as "root", along with all the actually-trusted apps (including those from the OS), and everything else setuid to their own per-app users, would be a useful configuration. Everything that's fully trusted is free to interact, while isolating those which aren't.

I do not like the fact, that an installation of for example a game needs admin rights, and has every chance to access data it should not be able to do.

That's possibly because of a need to install kernel-mode components (might be DRM related). If you're truly paranoid, VMs would be a better choice for isolation. But fundamentally, I don't believe in installing/using/changing apps that I don't completely trust, so perhaps this is a less of a problem for me and I'd rather have everything be "open".

[flukus]

> Filesystem permissions cannot be controlled on a per app level

They can if you adopt a user per app model. I thought this is what android/UWP did under the hood.

> I do not like the fact, that an installation of for example a game needs admin rights, and has every chance to access data it should not be able to do.

I doesn't. The biggest cause of this is the default of requiring admin to access program files, even if it's only touching it's own new folder.

Installing off steam happens without admin rights, apart from the VC++ redistributable (why is that a thing?).

[WorldMaker]

Steam is a terrible security example because Steam just gives Everyone Read/Write/Execute access to its folder(s) on Windows. The Steam solution to permissions on Windows has always been to basically just give up and not bother.

[koko775]

WinRT means:

* No app closure callbacks. You don't know if it's suspending or exiting.

* No "are you sure you want to exit? Save/Don't save" dialogs. If you close or crash pray your data was saved, and if it takes a long time to flush to disk...really pray.

* No minimizing/backgrounding to tray icons allowed.

[kodfodrasz]

* I guess You can create a background worker handling persistence, which runs until completion even if the UI has been closed. (I have not used UWP yet)

* IMHO save/don't save dialogs are an usability antipattern.

* Tray icons are also something of a remedy of the past. They are now replaced by background operations and live tiles. I can see why those can be problems, I can imagine the usecases you would solve using those tools, but the new app model is build around a slightly different workflow.

But if you do not like the way to solve it as it is intended in the new app model, the solution is: report it/upvote it. If you tell your problems here, then some members of HN community will know it and understand it, but it is unlikely that it will be acted upon by Microsoft. For that you need to have your voice heard on their forums. (eg. feedback app, uservoice...)

[emodendroket]

> No "are you sure you want to exit? Save/Don't save" dialogs. If you close or crash pray your data was saved, and if it takes a long time to flush to disk...really pray.

Of course not, because it's supposed to also work on mobile. Does your iPad let applications prevent you from going back to the home screen?

[flukus]

> Of course not, because it's supposed to also work on mobile. Does your iPad let applications prevent you from going back to the home screen?

You don't see the problem here? Why do I want the restrictions of mobile phones limiting my desktop applications?

[emodendroket]

Well, for one, I don't see how else the concept of "universal apps" could possibly work.

[WorldMaker]

There is a Suspending callback.

Sounds like you have some misconceptions about the UWP/WinRT application lifecycle:

https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/uwp/launch-resume/a...

[m_fayer]

If I recall correctly, this callback has some undocumented deadline. Go over that and it's unceremoniously killed, great way to corrupt whatever you're desperately trying to write to disk.

[WorldMaker]

No, it is a pretty well documented deadline at this point. The callback is not intended for I/O work, but to clean up resources or to spin up any background tasks you might need for I/O. There are lots of articles full of best practices for the app lifecycle. Yes, it's different than Win32. Yes, it's influenced by mobile and low resource environments. But it's better for it and worth learning.

[flukus]

I really disagree with UWP being a better model than limited UAC. Apps being able to talk to each other and the filesystem and interacting is what makes them useful. The linux/sudo approach is the best comrpomise between security and utility I'm yet to come across.

> The old system had defaults originating from the single user non-multimedia usecases left over as a legacy, but currently we have so many things going on our computers, that privacy/security needs a rethinking of old concepts to cope with new challenges.

I android has proven anything it's that sandboxed applications don't solve this problem.

[raesene6]

Generally the way I've seen sudo implemented in all desktop linuxes is that after providing a password the process gets all access.

This to me isn't a great trade off as it relies on the user invoking the process understanding the security risks they're taking, which is a tricky one.

Sure you can do more with sudo, but unless it's the default, most people won't

[flukus]

There's room for improvemnt, it's just the best trade off I've seen. Windows has it's "click yes to continue" buttons, android has it's permissions thing that is useless to everyone. At least making people pause and type a password might make them think about what they're doing a bit.

[icebraining]

The best trade off I've seen is what Nokia's S60 (and iOS, or so I've heard) did: have granular permissions like Android, but show a dialog when the app first tries to use them, instead of having a laundry list at installation time.

You're more likely to think twice when you open your flashlight app and it asks "Do you want to allow [Flashlight App] to read all your contacts?"

[swiley]

The global filesystem is only a problem if you run lots of closed source/untrustworthy apps. Many of us don't and use the global filesystem very heavily and very much hope it does not go away.

[UK-AL]

Except for the vast majority of people are not IT experts. The store model is probably vastly safer for the average user.

[garganzol]

An average user is a myth. Every kind of average user has its own traits and they differ widely.

That's why there is such thing as system settings.

And yes, most desktop users are conscious when they work with files. Windows by default suggests "My Documents" folder as a target destination which is a pretty sane safe choice for all traits of average Joes.

[UK-AL]

That not the issue though. Programs that plaster your registry full of crap or replace or change os files etc

[swiley]

Honestly I think not having a global filesystem makes things harder for the "average user." Most college students aren't going to only keep their word documents in word for example, they need to email them and upload them to tools like blackboard.

[kodfodrasz]

this is why shared storages are also needed, where apps can have a common view of some set of data.

[raesene6]

Unless you or someone you trust has audited an application, all apps are untrusted and should be given least privileges (e.g. the mobile/UWP model).

Personally I'd suggest that the trade off is whether the risks of global filesystems are worth it in productivity benefits.

For standard users (non IT-professionals) I think they are not and for IT professionals, in most cases, I think they are.

[kodfodrasz]

I guess you also only then need a firewall, if you use closed source software. When using OpenSource software you can always be sure that nothing will do unauthorized access to your network, willingly or accidentally...

[benaadams]

That's a bit naive... Just two examples

OpenSSL has had 22 vulnerabilities in 2016 so far [1]

Linux has has 336 vulnerabilities in 2016 so far [2]

[1] https://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/statistics-results?adv_se...

[2] https://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/statistics-results?adv_se...

[kodfodrasz]

I tried to point to the flaw in the parent comment's logic with a sarcastic answer. :)

[pjmlp]

Average users don't ever know where they are supposed to save their files.

Every time I visit family I get to sort out the files scattered around the hard disk.

[flukus]

Every time I call my mum I have to call my dads mobile first because she can't remember to press the button to hang up. Ther's only so much simplyfying you can do.

Funilly enough, in her 70's now she's taught herself to use a computer and can manage documents in the file system.

[ahoka]

I think it's the same tier as global variables: an anti-pattern.

[pjc50]

Desktop Windows is clearly the technology of the past, and I say that as someone who develops on it every day.

People starting in a green field will build a web or a mobile app if at all possible. The cases where it isn't are basically games and what used to be called "workstation" apps: big chunky tools like SolidWorks.

Even Adobe have retreated to the cloud, although the tools still run locally.

[nightski]

It is not in the least. There are millions of gamers, creative professionals, developers, engineers, etc.. that use desktop applications on Windows every single day and that will not change any time soon.

[flukus]

And then you have Microsoft, trying their hardest to replace that desktop with a mobile OS.

[emodendroket]

I agree with the sentiment but I think Win32 is with us forever (and because WinForms is just a wrapper on top of that that's probably safe too).

[mattmanser]

When they did it everything was still to play for on mobile, in their eyes at least.

If it had worked it would have been a smart move, but it was wildly over-optimistic.

[brudgers]

My understanding is that the 'Universal Windows Platform' is comprised of disparate multiple non-universal platforms such as desktops, mobile devices, servers, clouds, and IOT things. In practice this means that a UWP application targets one or more platforms and not all of them, e.g. Microsoft's UWP Camera app doesn't target the Azure or Server platforms.

My take is that Microsoft is in mobile for the long term and that its strategy has been to gradually migrate the target uses first addressed with Windows CE into the mainline of Windows and that Windows 10 is the realization of that strategy...we're back running Excel on mobile devices.

Windows Phone 7 was the first step in that direction. Windows Phone 8 and Windows RT were intermediate steps toward hardware agnosticism and away from Wintel strategies. I call it an intermediate step because apps for those platforms were [at least largely] forward compatible to Windows 10 and Windows 10 Mobile.