Coffeehouse Thread

66 posts

Forum Read Only

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

Conversation Locked

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

Why is XP Support for .NET 4.5 not happening?

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    vesuvius

    , Vaccano wrote

     But despite your arguments, there are still at least a full quarter of ALL MACHINES out there running XP.  Microsoft needed to have a quicker end of support for XP (all support) to make the kind of move they are making.

     

    Clearly in the minority then, if we wait for you, it will be another decade. You are the problem here, not Microsoft.

    That is what you are finding hard to accept.

     

  • User profile image
    electricnin​ja33

    .NET 4.5 dramatically optimizes the TPL and other multithreading framework code without using anything new that requires Vista or later, and this is vitally important for the async/await keywords. This is my fourth company in five years and every single one mandates XP as a baseline spec for their products. There's no reason not to support Windows XP; nothing changed in WPF that will require a newer version of DirectX. Nor did anything in the CLR thread pool change to REQUIRE Vista or later. This is basically planned obsolescence.

  • User profile image
    Blue Ink

    @electricninja33: Spot on, it's planned obsolescence. And that's because maintaining old code becomes exponentially more expensive as time goes by.

    But then, we have known about XP's EOL for years. There are just still 21 months of life left in XP, so let's do a little math... take away the time needed to upgrade (nobody in their right mind would run their business on an OS without security patches, and those who plan to are just a lawsuit waiting to happen). Then take away the time it takes to design, develop, test and deploy the product. What's left? A few months? One year? Is it worthwhile to start a new development for that?

  • User profile image
    evildictait​or

    , electricninja33 wrote

    .NET 4.5 dramatically optimizes the TPL and other multithreading framework code without using anything new that requires Vista or later, and this is vitally important for the async/await keywords. This is my fourth company in five years and every single one mandates XP as a baseline spec for their products. There's no reason not to support Windows XP; nothing changed in WPF that will require a newer version of DirectX. Nor did anything in the CLR thread pool change to REQUIRE Vista or later. This is basically planned obsolescence.

    I also would like to be able to use the "async" keyword for my two customers in a million that use Windows 95. But it's not going to happen.

    You have a choice. If .NET 4.5 gives you an N% edge where N% is more than the proportion of your customers using XP, then use .NET 4.5 and drop support for XP. Otherwise, you'll just have to use .NET4.0 and wait a while before you can use your async keyword.

  • User profile image
    evildictait​or

    , Vaccano wrote

    Microsoft needed to have a quicker end of support for XP (all support) to make the kind of move they are making.

    I want my company to move off XP (and we are heading in that direction).  But it will be a while still, and the staticstics show I am not alone.

    Please explain how these two statements are consistent. If Microsoft had made the end-of-life sooner, then they'd have dropped support for .NET 3 from XP and we'd have just had this conversation earlier. If they kept support for .NET 4.5, then you'd just come back and complain when they make this decision for .NET 5.0 or .NET 7 or whatever.

    There's going to be an end of life for every product at some point, and people who have hammered their business into relying on XP living forever are going to get mad whether it EOLs in 2008 or 2058. I frankly can't see how you can do better in the industry than seeing Microsoft give you twelve years of non-breaking changes to XP including basically a free major version upgrade (SP2).

    Find me a single company with a better EOL policy, or come up with a better way that Microsoft can kill XP, and maybe I'll take you a bit more seriously. Most people (i.e. >75% of the market) have ditched XP. If you're in the last quarter, it's time for you to move on.

    Let's not forget that most of that remaining 25% are corporate environments that won't be running your software anyway, so it's not like it's even 25% of your customers.

  • User profile image
    androidi

    There's likely good bit of business to be had for 3rd party supported back-ports of security updates and maybe even the new NET framework and its updates. IDK though if MS has somehow restricted companies from doing such without separate agreement. There's certainly some cases where Vista and newer are not good because of say poor support for hardware accelerated GDI drivers. Or maybe there's some industrial/scientific thing that uses game port. Some issues can be worked around or apps updated but if there was enough demand for backports of patches and such, the cost of that service could be low enough to be sensible alternative to working around app specific issues.

     

     

  • User profile image
    kettch

    @androidi: This is acceptable. If people want to stay on XP, then they can pay for it, and in some cases it's probably worth it. However, expecting Microsoft to support it for free indefinitely is ridiculous.

  • User profile image
    Vaccano

    People here can say that asking Microsoft to supporting XP is ridiculous. 

    But is it really so odd to do what your developer customer base wants?

    Head on over to Visual Studio User Voice and look at the top requests.  You will see that XP support is number 5.  And all the ones above it are C++ and IDE related.

    So the top .net related request of users is to add XP support for .net 4.5.

    This is all because developers have lots of customers that are using XP.  We can't make them change.  But we can't make Microsoft change either. 

    So will all try to cope with the mess of the in-place upgrade as best as possible (my corporation has blocked .net 4.5 from all computers).

    But in the end it would have made everything so much better if XP support was there.  Or failing that, make .net 4.5  a side-by-side install so that it does not mess up development of .net 4.0 apps.

  • User profile image
    vesuvius

    , Vaccano wrote

    e upgrade as best as possible (my corporation has blocked .net 4.5 from all computers).

    But in the end it would have made everything so much better if XP support was there.  Or failing that, make .net 4.5  a side-by-side install so that it does not mess up development of .net 4.0 apps.

    No, it would have made things much much worse. Take the time to watch the following videos

    http://channel9.msdn.com/posts/NET-45-Conversation-with-the-BCL-Team-Improvements-Evolution-and-More

    http://channel9.msdn.com/posts/NET-45-Size-on-disk-improvements

    Engineering .NET to work side by side, would have been doubling their workload for people like your organization that will not move on with the times

    The fact of the matter is that presently the traditional desktop is inconsequential to Microsoft's vision, and your complains are quite selfish, and self serving.

    Maybe you get a thrill out of posting tirelessly about what is a non-issue for 75% (if that number does not alarm you, nothing will - it completely negates your argument) of people, so you thinking that making a fuss in this thread will change anything, as as misguided as your organizations unwillingness to move on.

    This post really is quite boring now, with some really fine minds making it abundantly clear why you are wrong, but like a troll you will keep coming back with irrational and ill argued assertions.

  • User profile image
    Vaccano

    @vesuvius - The 75% -25% split is for customers.  NOT Developers.

    Assuming you have a standard split of the demographic, it means that 1/4 of your income comes from people running XP. 

    Most companies are not doing so well that they can afford to just drop a quarter of their income because you think it is "selfish".

    And stop calling me a troll.  I am presenting facts is a clear and un-argumentative manner.

  • User profile image
    kettch

    @Vaccano: So, you are saying that Microsoft should double (Probably more than that when you take into account all the other factors. Really, check out those references that vesuvius posted) their costs to do what amounts to subsidising a small-ish number of developers?

    It's simple. If your customers are running XP, then you develop for XP. I really doubt that there are any insurmountable bugs that prevent you from using .NET 4.

  • User profile image
    evildictait​or

    , Vaccano wrote

    People here can say that asking Microsoft to supporting XP is ridiculous. 

    I'm not saying it's ridiculous. I'm just saying it's not going to happen. XP is dead. The Microsoft board has spoken.

    Assuming you have a standard split of the demographic, it means that 1/4 of your income comes from people running XP. 

    But not 1/4 of Microsoft's customers. The people on XP stopped giving their money to the residents of Redmond many moons ago, and hence they no longer enjoy the support of Microsoft.

  • User profile image
    ZippyV

    @Vaccano: If you want your customers to upgrade then stop making new software that supports XP. Just provide bug fixes for Windows XP versions of your software and bring a new version out that only supports Windows 7.

  • User profile image
    Vaccano

    @evildictaitor - I guess that is where the rubber hits the road.

    Companies (like mine) still give Microsoft money for Dev Tools so that they can create their product(s) for Windows XP (along with the other Windows OS options).

    And that is the reason I am upset.  We are paying (via MSDN Subscription) for upgrades I cannot use.

    However, I am a realist enough to realize that the amount of money contributed by companies like mine is not large in the overall Microsoft money pail.

    And, Microsoft has done a good job conniving ... sorry convincing, developers into believing they can use Visual Studio 2012 to "target" .NET 4.0 and that it will work just as good.

    By the time developers realize the mistake, they will have already paid for their upgrades.

    So, sadly, in the end all Microsoft is going to be hit with is angry developer customers.  They already have a lot of those for other reasons, so adding some more is probably not a big deal for them.

  • User profile image
    elmer

    July Marketshare stats out, and XP continues its steady decline. North America WinXP: -1% => 25% Win7: +1% => 49%

  • User profile image
    cheong

    , elmer wrote

    July Marketshare stats out, and XP continues its steady decline. North America WinXP: -1% => 25% Win7: +1% => 49%

    To be fair. That figure is irrelevent. The only relevent figure is how many of his customer still using WinXP and won't upgrade to a newer OS.

    And for Vaccano, since Microsoft did nothing from preventing you to use VS2010 to develop for WinXP, I think if you're pinned by customer demand to still develop for WinXP, you shouldn't complain.

    See VB6 users continue to complain they can't get workable multithread solution even if they continue to pay for MSDN subscription.

    And, except those syntax sugars, name one thing that is missing in .NET v4.0 that'll affect your ability to build solutions to show it's a big deal for you.

    Recent Achievement unlocked: Code Avenger Tier 4/6: You see dead program. A lot!
    Last modified
  • User profile image
    RichardD3

    Why is this site so broken? Every time I try to submit a reply, it just reloads the page.

  • User profile image
    RichardD3

    Oh, so you'll post that one will you?!

    So what's wrong with a simple reply???!


    Vaccano wrote
    Head on over to Visual Studio User Voice and look at the top requests. You will see that XP support is number 5.

    Or it was, until someone at Microsoft noticed it. It's since been marked as "Declined" just to get it off the list.

    I wouldn't be too upset if we couldn't use 4.5 on XP/2003, so long as it wasn't an in-place upgrade. As it stands, we can either buy into the multi-targeting lie and write 4.0 code that won't work on a computer with 4.0 on it, or ignore 4.5/VS2012 and write 4.0 code that won't work on a computer with 4.5 on it.

    Either way, we're screwed, and Microsoft doesn't give a flying elephant.

Conversation locked

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