[chris_money202]

OP says Windows needs builders to make applications and that is what Windows Lite would enable (or expand) but then says Windows Lite shouldn't include .NET one of the primary frameworks to build applications on Windows.

[miah_]

.NET is still installable as a standalone thing. In fact I probably have several versions installed on my current Windows PC. No reason Windows Lite couldn't also have .NET installed _when you need it_.

[chris_money202]

I still don't know if I am sold with that. .NET is also a runtime so how do you handle the user story? If your users are also on Windows Lite then they have to manage .NET version or you have to package .NET with whatever you build. If your users are on full Windows, wouldn't it just make sense for you to build in same environment as your Users? Especially since IT would have to manage two separate operating systems if devs went Windows Lite and say Sales using the target app was on Windows.

This whole thing makes sense for indie devs or build VMs but breaks down for Enterprise pretty quick, and Microsoft is much more friendly to Enterprise customers than indie devs.

[contextfree]

They already have this problem, Windows includes .NET Framework 4.x but not any modern version of .NET

[maxrmk]

Right! Everything from word to the calculator app uses .NET these days. Even many games!

[kristianp]

If you're talking about the Word in Microsoft Office, I believe it doesn't require .Net. Office add-ins can be built with .Net though.

[debugnik]

The .NET that comes with Windows is the ridiculously outdated .NET Framework 4.8. But most greenfield projects should have been using the newer .NET (previously .NET Core) for several years now, which is installed separately or deployed as self-contained apps.

[hypercube33]

The majority of software runs on old outdated .net framework and no one is going to take the time to port it to .net 10 even though it only takes a short time to do so itself, but keep in mind a lot of this isn't the porting it's the testing, release which includes 20 year old enterprise clients who are stingy about change and paying for any updated anything.

[debugnik]

I know, and those can keep using Framework 4.8, but the topic here is attracting developers to Windows, and the primary toolchain for that today definitely isn't Framework 4.8, so the top comment is moot.

[tpoacher]

How about this analogy then:

"OP says Windows needs webdevs to make webpages, but then says Windows Lite internals shouldn't be tightly knit with Internet Explorer, one of the primary means of viewing webpages on windows."

[TiredOfLife]

And recent installs of 11 already have the old .net framework as an optional feature install.

[pbohun]

Honestly, I think starting from win32 again would be a breath of fresh air. Also, note that I described it as an option, no one would be forced on Windows Lite. It was my own speculation that it would become popular.

[refulgentis]

The blog post itself is wishcasting, but it’s missing the point completely once we strip .NET. .NET has been around since I was at least 11, I’m 38 now. I don’t know why it’d be considered optional, the backwards compatibility story disappears without it. Once we want to start fresh from Win32 it’s just not-Windows programmer who vaguely understands Win32 is still available, rather than anything helping anyone.