Coffeehouse Thread

35 posts

Why does this site not advertize that to develop for Win Phone 8 you must buy Windows 8????

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • kettch

    @ScanIAm: Ah, but according to some people, testing and QA come with a negligible cost or are even completely free.

  • DeathBy​VisualStudio

    , ScanIAm wrote

    *snip*

    Is it worth it given the limited population of developers? No.

    Limited population of WP developers overall? Then you may be right. Wink

    Limited population of WP developers that are running W7? I'm afraid I'll have to quote the wise dahat:

    What proof?

    The same goes for: 

    , MasterPie wrote

    *snip*

    maybe the people who would develop for Windows 8 are also more likely to develop for WP8.

    I dunno why some people can be so presumptuous...  Scared  

    If we all believed in unicorns and fairies the world would be a better place.
    Last modified
  • DeathBy​VisualStudio

    , kettch wrote

    @ScanIAm: Ah, but according to some people, testing and QA come with a negligible cost or are even completely free.

    Also according to some people testing and QA cost untold millions without providing even the smallest bit of proof.

    That argument goes both ways.

    If we all believed in unicorns and fairies the world would be a better place.
    Last modified
  • kettch

    @DeathByVisualStudio: What proof do you need? All of those things cost money and more significantly, they take time. Somebody weighed the cost and decided that there was more value to be had by not supporting 7. If you have trouble with this concept, I suggest you do some reading on large scale ALM.

  • ScanIAm

    , DeathBy​VisualStudio wrote

    *snip*

    Limited population of WP developers overall? Then you may be right. Wink

    Yes, that is what I wrote.

    See how awesome the conversation flows when we don't add strawmen?

  • DeathBy​VisualStudio

    , kettch wrote

    @DeathByVisualStudio: What proof do you need? All of those things cost money and more significantly, they take time. Somebody weighed the cost and decided that there was more value to be had by not supporting 7. If you have trouble with this concept, I suggest you do some reading on large scale ALM.

    C'mon kettch it's not the fact that there's an associated cost (both time & money). It's how much (or little) it costs. You're also assuming that cost was the only driving factor in the decision. It's quite possible that one of the factors was the idea of promoting Windows 8. Since none of us were a part of that decision making process it's all conjecture -- in both directions. You can believe your opinion aligns more with common sense but its still just as baseless.

    If we all believed in unicorns and fairies the world would be a better place.
    Last modified
  • DeathBy​VisualStudio

    , ScanIAm wrote

    *snip*

    Yes, that is what I wrote.

    See how awesome the conversation flows when we don't add strawmen?

    And equally awesome when we don't respond with ad hominems.  

    If we all believed in unicorns and fairies the world would be a better place.
    Last modified
  • evildictait​or

    , DeathBy​VisualStudio wrote

    Also according to some people testing and QA cost untold millions without providing even the smallest bit of proof.

    At Microsoft, the standard unit of development is a team comprising one PM, one dev and one test. That means for most projects at Microsoft, about two thirds of the cost of creating new code are the costs of managing the project and testing the code. And that's based on some pretty optimistic assumptions that the dev spends all of his time writing new code and never spends time refactoring or fixing bugs in the code.

    That being said, whilst its quite likely that that not providing support for, say, Mac OSX, Linux or Windows XP are likely to be in the "not worth it" collection of feature requests, not having support for Windows 7 does look to me like a political decision.

  • bondsbw

    , bondsbw wrote

    Your second argument is sound though.

    , BitFlipper wrote

    Your analogy misses the whole point that there is no technical limitation at all that you can't develop for WP8 on Windows 7.

    Please read.

  • BitFlipper

    , dahat wrote

    *snip*

    Provided proof? What proof?... you said that with some hacks the WP8 tools can be installed to WP7 and they run. I've seen no proof of that here. More so... even if they do run and support deploying to and debugging against a device... doesn't mean everything still works.

    For all you know, there are some features (other than the emulator) that require Windows 8. I don't know if they exist, I have just seen cased like that over the years, and when you say things like:

    I understand that I hit a nerve with you working for Microsoft and all, but...

    The proof I provided has nothing to do with the hacks I mentioned. I just added it in there because it is another way to prove my point.

    The actual proof I provided is that on a Windows 8 OS where the hardware doesn't support SLAT, the WP8 installer will simply warn you that the emulator won't work, then continue to install the SDK. So this proves that the reason you can't install it on Windows 7 has nothing to do with the emulator being able to function or not.

    It is some other reason...

    EDIT: And as evildictaito​r mentions, it is one thing to not support much older OSes, but Windows 8 was barely out the door and off to a poor start and MS limits the WP8 SDK to it and only it? That is not the typical requirements when MS releases products.

    I guess one of the reasons is probably to sync up WP8 and Windows 8 development, what with all the unbelievably great experiences with having a broken desktop and Metro rammed down our throats. I mean, some way or another we will all get to fall in love with The New Way.

  • dahat

    , BitFlipper wrote

    *snip*

    I understand that I hit a nerve with you working for Microsoft and all, but...

    No... see the line under my avatar over on the left.

    The proof I provided has nothing to do with the hacks I mentioned. I just added it in there because it is another way to prove my point.

    The actual proof I provided is that on a Windows 8 OS where the hardware doesn't support SLAT, the WP8 installer will simply warn you that the emulator won't work, then continue to install the SDK. So this proves that the reason you can't install it on Windows 7 has nothing to do with the emulator being able to function or not.

    You have a strange definition of 'proof'... Bing defines it as:

    proof [ proof ]  

    1.conclusive evidence: evidence or an argument that serves to establish a fact or the truth of something
    2.test of something: a test or trial of something to establish whether it is true
    3.state of having been proved: the quality or condition of having been proved

    You've attempted to go down the path of #1... but limit yourself to just Hyper-V limitations, which is silly when it is quite well known you can do WP8 development on a Win8 machine that doesn't support Hyper-V.

    It is some other reason...

    Any idea what that could be?

    Visual Studio 2012 works on Windows 7. Does it work fully? Does it do everything on Windows 7 that it does on Windows 8? Go back to the definition of proof above, note #2. I opted to try that.

    I just did a Windows 7 Ultimate to a Hyper-V VM, then installed a copy of Visual Studio 2012 with all features, and upon first start up, I noticed that something was odd:

    win 8 dev settings

    Do you see it? Now look what we see when we launch VS and aim to create a C# project:

    Something missing

    No "Window Store" node, nor are there are any project templates for Windows Store development.

    Rather than a conspiracy between the Illuminati, the aliens, and the Windows org to try to sell more Windows 8 copies... but instead what seems a technical limitations.

    EDIT: And as evildictaito​r mentions, it is one thing to not support much older OSes, but Windows 8 was barely out the door and off to a poor start and MS limits the WP8 SDK to it and only it? That is not the typical requirements when MS releases products.

    Again, but why?

    While past versions of Windows development have revolved around various Win32, COM and later .NET APIs & libraries... Win 8 (like Windows Phone 8) also has the benefits of WinRT... something that does not exist on Windows 7.

    Not so sinister after all it would seem.

  • BitFlipper

    @dahat: Wow, seriously? Way to not understand what is going on.

    The proof I provided is to show that the reason the WP8 SDK can't be installed on Windows 7 has nothing to do with whether the emulator is able to function or not. Never said that proves that the WP8 SDK should therefore work on Windows 7, just that the emulator ain't the reason.

    Sheesh, how hard is that to understand?

  • Craig_​Matthews

    Not to be a dick or anything, but you specifically said that the Windows 8 requirement was "purely artificial" and that there is "no technical reason" you can't develop WP8 on Windows 7. You stated that the only reason it won't work is because MS crippled the installer and that you can bypass said artificial [installer] restriction and have a "fully functional" WP8 dev env under Windows 7.

    Emulator argument or not, your post was entirely about the restriction being artificial, and dahat showed that it was technical.

     

  • DeathBy​VisualStudio

    Seems to me that Dahat has expanded the scope from WP development to WinRT development in his proof.  Does WP development require WinRT? I thought it used its own WinPRT run-time? I honestly don't know but from my perspective if that's the case then this seems like comparing apples and oranges. 

    Don't get me wrong; the day Microsoft merges the run-times so you can write for both W8 and WP8 using WinRT I would understand the requirements for W8 but I don't believe that day is upon us yet. 

    And IMO that makes BitFlipper's initial premise valid; the exclusion of development of WP apps on W7 is artificial and not a technical one (yet). 

    If we all believed in unicorns and fairies the world would be a better place.
    Last modified
  • wastingtime​withforums

    Repost from: http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/E3-Smackdown/e06dcd6112ef477494a8a1de0087fe2a

    But it's more relevant here:

    Given the bottom-pit marketshare of Windows Phone compared to Android and iOS, Microsoft should make it possible to develop on XP for it.

    Android is doing exactly that:

    http://www.cnx-software.com/2011/01/03/installing-android-sdk-on-windows-xp-hello-world-application/

    http://developer.android.com/sdk/index.html

    Android is the market leader, they don't need to offer the option, but they did. Yet MS is restricting development for their underdog phone offering only to their most controversial OS of all time. Niche marketshare, yet monopoly arrogance.

    It also begs the question why Google, a third party, is so easily able to make their Android SDK tools available for all Windows versions since XP, while Microsoft seems to have such severe problems supporting anything other than 8. No matter whether it's because of technical challenges, politics, or some kind of insane marketing approach. Any of these reasons is pathetic compared to the competiton, given that MS is the first party of the OS, the SDK, the development IDE and WP. There's literally no excuse. Reading Dahat's post, it sounds like they have pulled an IE and made the WP8 emulation a "critical component of the Windows 8 OS" or something. Wow.

    Not even Apple is restricting iOS development to their very latest OS X release only.

  • ScanIAm

    , wastingtime​withforums wrote

    Repost from: http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/E3-Smackdown/e06dcd6112ef477494a8a1de0087fe2a

    But it's more relevant here:

    Given the bottom-pit marketshare of Windows Phone compared to Android and iOS, Microsoft should make it possible to develop on XP for it.

    You can.  But first, you need to insert the Windows 8 install disk and patch your OS to one that was invented in this decade.



    Android is doing exactly that:

    http://www.cnx-software.com/2011/01/03/installing-android-sdk-on-windows-xp-hello-world-application/

    http://developer.android.com/sdk/index.html

    Android is the market leader, they don't need to offer the option, but they did. Yet MS is restricting development for their underdog phone offering only to their most controversial OS of all time. Niche marketshare, yet monopoly arrogance.

    It also begs the question why Google, a third party, is so easily able to make their Android SDK tools available for all Windows versions since XP, while Microsoft seems to have such severe problems supporting anything other than 8. No matter whether it's because of technical challenges, politics, or some kind of insane marketing approach. Any of these reasons is pathetic compared to the competiton, given that MS is the first party of the OS, the SDK, the development IDE and WP. There's literally no excuse. Reading Dahat's post, it sounds like they have pulled an IE and made the WP8 emulation a "critical component of the Windows 8 OS" or something. Wow.

    This all reminds me of the times when people would post, proudly, about being able to run *nix on a zx80 or some other obsolete hardware.  It's nice, but not supported, and I guarantee that if you give google a call when it doesn't quite work right, they'll....oh yeah, you can't do that.

    Not even Apple is restricting iOS development to their very latest OS X release only.

    Does it work on an iMac from 2001?

  • wastingtime​withforums

    , ScanIAm wrote

    *snip*

    This all reminds me of the times when people would post, proudly, about being able to run *nix on a zx80 or some other obsolete hardware.  It's nice, but not supported, and I guarantee that if you give google a call when it doesn't quite work right, they'll....oh yeah, you can't do that.

    Can you do it with the free Microsoft tools? What's the difference in support here?

    And running the Android SDK is supported on XP.

    System requirments:

    http://developer.android.com/sdk/index.html

    Windows XP (32-bit), Vista (32- or 64-bit), or Windows 7 (32- or 64-bit)
    Mac OS X 10.5.8 or later (x86 only)
    Linux (tested on Ubuntu Linux, Lucid Lynx)
    GNU C Library (glibc) 2.7 or later is required.
    On Ubuntu Linux, version 8.04 or later is required.
    64-bit distributions must be capable of running 32-bit applications.

    Look, I understand why XP is not supported by WP8. That's excusable. But banning even Windows 7 is insane. If that's really because of a technical reason, then the engineering on that part is seriously botched up. There's no excuse for such an engineering decision.

    If it's marketing, then it's just plain nuts playing these tricks with a niche platform. Microsoft should be begging developers, not playing lame Windows8-pushing tricks with them.

    If they are demonstrating such bone-headed arrogance with a sub 4% platform, then something is seriously wrong with Microsoft's current management style. Pretty much all their product launches in the past 18 months generated endless controversy, and decisions like these serve as further proof.

Comments closed

Comments have been closed since this content was published more than 30 days ago, but if you'd like to continue the conversation, please create a new thread in our Forums, or Contact Us and let us know.