Coffeehouse Thread

48 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

WPF still optional on Vista?

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    DCMonkey

    I'm hearing again that WPF (aka Avalon) and the rest of WinFX may not be installed by default on Vista, and the user will have to install it from the CD themselves.

    MichaelLatta's post here on the WPF forums cites MS people saying this as recently as last week.

    What's the deal? I've already lost any interest in WPF till Vista ships at the least, but it would be nice to see WPF get out the door without a bullet to one foot.

  • User profile image
    Deactivated User

    Comment removed at user's request.

  • User profile image
    Cannot​Resolve​Symbol

    Yeah, WinFX (including WPF, WCF, etc.) is one of the big selling points Microsoft is hawking for Vista.

  • User profile image
    DCMonkey

    Winston Pang wrote:
    I don't think so, many things in Vista are built on top of these fundamental frameworks. It's essential they're in it.

    Also, if you don't have WPF, that's another major pilar gone from Vista.


    That's just it. Nothing from WPF but some low level non-managed code (the Media Integration Layer IIRC) is used by Vista. The same goes for the rest of the OS. Nothing that I know of in Vista (ie: not the server) actually relies on any managed code whatsoever. It is there for 3rd parties to build on at this point. Maybe "Vienna" will start to take advantage of it but that's a long way off.

    I've never subscribed to the "WPF won't ship with Vista at all" notion, and I accept the reasons given for why Vista won't use WPF itself (difficulty building on an unstable API that has to ship at the same time as the product built upon it), but to make it optional is just strikes me as stupid.

  • User profile image
    Tom Servo

    The only thing Vista uses from WPF is the milcore.dll, for DWM composition and texture sharing for WPF apps. The WinFX framework however is still not installed with Vista itself. Also, ages ago there were already posts on a few Microsoft blogs on how it'll be a seperate install.

    All this hot air on PDC, and now it ain't even part of the core OS. And it looks like it'll even go RTM before Vista. Seriously, gg Microsoft.

  • User profile image
    Chadk

    Aw. I really dont think that is a good idea.
    As i see it, one of the great things about vista, was that i had .NET AND(!) Winfx installed, so problems about installing WinFx seperatly wouldnt be a problem.

    If it wont be installed as standard, i really think that would lower count of vendors using the great things.

    WinFx was the biggest pillar in Vista. And now they are to make it a seperate install? Gosh.

  • User profile image
    Bobinho

    So, no Win FS, no Win FX, no .net, no Monad, and a derivative, half-baked user  interface.

    On the bright side the sidebar is semi-transparent.

  • User profile image
    Cannot​Resolve​Symbol

    The only way they can get away with not using it by default is if Windows Installer installs it transparently when a program dependent on it is installed.  There's enough hype about it that many developers will be using WinFX when Vista ships.

  • User profile image
    Cairo

    So, Vista is XP plus new theme (and audio)?

  • User profile image
    Tom Servo

    That, plus IPv6 and way higher memory consumption.

  • User profile image
    cwilliams11​45

    So, Vista is XP plus new theme (and audio)?




    I can't believe folks are still saying things like this.  Don't get me wrong, I think WPF should absolutely install by default but if you think doing otherwise would make Vista "XP plus new theme" you obviously haven't been paying attention.

  • User profile image
    Cairo

    cwilliams1145 wrote:
    So, Vista is XP plus new theme (and audio)?




    I can't believe folks are still saying things like this.  Don't get me wrong, I think WPF should absolutely install by default but if you think doing otherwise would make Vista "XP plus new theme" you obviously haven't been paying attention.



    No, I *have* been paying attention. I've even installed one of the Vista betas.

    Where's the beef?

  • User profile image
    Tom Servo

    Uh, audio works well enough already on Windows XP, the network stack makes only a difference on the server, transactional NTFS ditto, all other kernel enhancements wouldn't be missed if they were left out of Vista. And all these changes are under the hood, a normal user wouldn't notice the difference. What they see is a new skin on the UI, the rest remains as it is. Wow, the control panel was revamped a tiny bit and some new wizards you'll only use one as normal user. Even the virtual folders are considered to be ditched. There's nothing much left. It is XP with a skin.

    The only reason I would throw it (aka Windows Server 2007) on my system to replace my well working Windows Server 2003 installation would be the IPv6 support, and maybe the audio stack, because of the psychological difference. Other than that, I see no reason to upgrade. I applaude the new code in the kernel, but at the end it doesn't make a difference to me, except for a backthought that there might be some minor CPU cycles saved.

    Also, I'm in the Vista beta, and right now I'm underwhelmed. I'm just not sure yet whether it's the product itself or the way the beta is organized, because I pretty much feel left in the dark there.

  • User profile image
    mclement

    Cairo wrote:
    So, Vista is XP plus new theme (and audio)?



    I wouldn't say that Smiley

    >>> http://spaces.msn.com/manodesign/blog/cns!DC8DC039B51DE219!362.entry

  • User profile image
    John Melville-- MD

    Am I the only one who gets it here?

    It seems that for every microsoft operating system I've seen released since DOS 4.0 (which really was so bad people were downgrading to 3.5)  there is some loud but insignificant group of naysayers announcing that there is insufficent "meat" in the product to justify an upgrade.  (The first that I recall was a PC Magazine artice "I will not upgrade!," about MS-DOS 5.0)

    And yet OS after OS after OS continue to be a considerable success.  There have been no mass defections to apple or *nix, despite very active communities on both these platforms.  Even the abomination that was windows Milenium Edition did not seem to be enough to hurt Microsoft's brand image or stock price.

    So in summary, if you don't want to upgrade, please don't.  Windows XP will still be supported for another 9? years for security patches.  Your dissatisfaction that Microsoft shared some ambitious goals and then did not achieve all of them does not make the current incantation any less of an excellent platform.

    For those of us who have been arround this block more than once, we've just heard it too many times!

  • User profile image
    Cider

    DCMonkey wrote:
    I'm hearing again that WPF (aka Avalon) and the rest of WinFX may not be installed by default on Vista, and the user will have to install it from the CD themselves.


    Whilst my initial reaction is to say I agree it should be installed, in reality it depends on 2 things:  how highly you rate security, and how common you expect widely available applications to use these frameworks.

    Whilst it is easy to say it should be installed by default, the real question is "what percentage of applications post-Vista will use these frameworks?".  Realistically, at best with a target audience of Vista and those who install WPF/WCF on XP, there may not be much of a take-up outside of niche environments or environments where the developer has the ability to control quite specifically the end environment (such as internal applications in companies where they have migrated to Vista).

    As such, by installing these components by defaults, you could dramatically increase the attack surface for the OS for features that the majority of users will never use.  Is this not exactly the same thing that people have criticised Microsoft so much for in the past?

    The "pillars of Longhorn" was a notion developed for the Longhorn pre-reset and personally, I'm glad its gone.  In my opinion, it was always a diagram that shouted "f**k off end users, Longhorn is just about developers".

  • User profile image
    DCMonkey

    That sounds very chicken and egg to me. Don't install it by default becuase not many people will use it, and no-one will use it becuase not many people have it installed.

    And it occurs to me, what does "on the CD" mean when a number of PC OEMs don't even ship with a OS CD? Will the OEMs install it by default or will users have to download it from Windows Update?

  • User profile image
    Maurits

    DCMonkey wrote:
    That sounds very chicken and egg to me. Don't install it by default becuase not many people will use it, and no-one will use it becuase not many people have it installed.


    A feature has to be really good to justify installing it by default.
    WPF is probably too resource-intensive to install by default.

    EDIT: One thing that bugs me, personally, is every OS cites "better performance" as a feature.  But every OS is slower than the one before.

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.