Loading user information from Channel 9

Something went wrong getting user information from Channel 9

Latest Achievement:

Loading user information from MSDN

Something went wrong getting user information from MSDN

Visual Studio Achievements

Latest Achievement:

Loading Visual Studio Achievements

Something went wrong getting the Visual Studio Achievements


  • Universal Windows App Programming -- not all it's cracked up to be.

    , cbae wrote

    Would that cause an exception if you wrapped the type in typeof().FullName if the device in question didn't have vibration capability?

    No, I just tried it, that works fine.

  • Universal Windows App Programming -- not all it's cracked up to be.

    @cbae:  Actually you're right, I think there is a better way:

    if (ApiInformation.IsApiContractPresent("Windows.Phone.PhoneContract", 1, 0))

    Many applications would call that up front in order to decide whether to expose features.

    For anyone interested, here's a link describing what APIs that contract/version contains: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/apps/dn706176.aspx  Look to the left for more contracts.

  • Universal Windows App Programming -- not all it's cracked up to be.

    Use the ApiInformation class to determine if the capability you need is registered on that device.  For your code:

    if (ApiInformation.IsTypePresent("Windows.Phone.Devices.Notification.VibrationDevice"))

  • how about this: make a COMPLICATED metro app

    @magicalclick: Right, but they are missing certain features that older versions have, and Jamie is concerned that it's because UWP as a platform simply isn't capable of doing more.

    Here I'll put the first list I found by searching on the topic of missing features from the Mail app (http://forums.windowscentral.com/windows-10/370571-windows-10-mail-app-missing-features.html)

    1) It doesn't provide the option to turn off Conversation View
    2) You can't view the headers in an email message
    3) You can only view messages in the Preview Pane, you can't open a message into a full-window/full-screen view
    4) You can't hold down SHIFT to select a range of messages, you must use CTRL to select each message individually
    5) There is no "Select All" option
    6) You can't create IMAP folders
    7) There are no message-management rules
    8) There's no spam filter
    9) You can't see more than one account at a time

    (Note that the first item is already fixed in a recent build.  Not sure about the rest.)

    Here's the thing... all of these features were just left out by Microsoft for whatever reason. Obviously the lack of a Select All doesn't mean that the platform can't support the concept.  The only item in the list that would need support from the framework is #3, opening a separate window (which UWP is perfectly capable of).

    My thinking is that the same is true of most of these apps.  90% of the features were left out obviously because of design decisions or time constraints.  10% of features rely on platform capabilities in some way... but most of those aren't actual issues, but again just design decisions/time constraints.  Of the rest, the secure sandbox will block some things that either need to be done a different way now or shouldn't be done at all (only applicable to third party Windows Store apps).  Finally, what's leftover are the UWP capabilities Microsoft has intentionally left out either because of OS design or because of their own time constraints.  They have reduced that last group quite a bit since Windows 8, and that list will continue to shrink.

  • how about this: make a COMPLICATED metro app

    I like the idea.  I don't think Microsoft will do it for those apps, because those apps are intended to be very basic... not proofs-of-concept or highly complex systems.

    I expect to see this come from third parties who are interested in supplying apps that either go beyond the first party apps or do something entirely different.  (But Microsoft could help by curating a small list of good examples, once they are available.)

  • the new metro apps are pretty lame...

    , NoelCarboni wrote

    An emphatic point of view that Win 10 has redeeming quality as compared to its predecessors can only come from someone who  A) accidentally invested a bunch of money in Microsoft, B) works there,  C) is a paid shill, D) is 6 years old, or E) has had a serious brain injury.

    Scratch that last one.  I know someone who's had such an accident and she still sees Win 10 for what it is.


    Hi folks, this is what is called ad hominem.  You may recognize this style from your days on the playground, built on such classics as "Your momma's so fat!" and "Where Do You Buy Your Clothes? Goodwill?"

    In the adult world, we realize that it really just means they don't have a good argument.

  • the new metro apps are pretty lame...

    , wastingtime​withforums wrote

    It's only syntactic sugar for library-sharing if you take out all the hype of it.

    Nope, it's not.  Not at all.

  • the new metro apps are pretty lame...

    , wastingtime​withforums wrote

    Metro (or whatever it's called) is three years old, four if you count the public betas. And there were constant API improvements along the way in 8.1, update 1 etc..  And most apps are still very "meh".

    By that logic, Windows Vista wasn't any different from Windows XP.  They made constant improvements to XP with each service pack, so Vista was obviously the same, right?

    Of course not.  You keep ignoring the fact that the 8.* improvements pale in comparison to what changed when it evolved into UWP.  You simply don't know what you're talking about so you keep making the same factual errors again and again and again and again.

    See, it's a gimmick. Syntactic sugar to something that was available before. A beefier VS-template at its core.


    Dear lord, you really don't have a clue what you're talking about.

    Ok, that's it, I'm not even reading the rest of your comment until you educate yourself on these things.

  • the new metro apps are pretty lame...

    , wastingtime​withforums wrote

    It's very easy to port 8x to 10:

    It's also very easy to port from HTML 1.0 to HTML5.  Does that mean HTML5 is as useless as HTML 1.0?

    You're running maybe the same exe, but if the application has any worth at all, it presents a different GUI for each form factor.

    That's the whole point of the "adaptive user interfaces" that I mentioned.

    The users could as well run different applications, and they should, because those are usually far better optimized for each use-case.

    If the developer wants to deploy a different version for each device type, he is completely free to do so.  All Microsoft did was add a very useful option for developers.

    No one wants to run a smartphone app on the desktop, and Microsoft doesn't automatically transform your smartphone app into a full-fledged desktop application or vice versa just by using UWP.

    I agree that people don't want to run smartphone apps on their desktop.  That's why the developer exposes more capabilities as the device gets larger and more capable.

    What, you thought this was about having the exact same functionality?

    No... this isn't WinRT.  How many times do I have to say that before it penetrates the average skull thickness on this forum?

    At the end of the day, you have the same binary, but that's pretty much it. All UWP truly does is just having an easier way to distribute common libraries, but that was already possible before:


    Sure, if you want to go back to the days before universal applications.  That article lists a ton of setup work to share code.  The same instructions for a UWP app is

    1. Create new UWP project in Visual Studio

    Oh look, I'm done.  And I don't have to maintain the complexities that exist in a shared code setup.

    The difference is night-and-day, but I don't expect a hater such as yourself to see.

    Who cares on anything non-smartphone, seriously.

    Anyone who has a touch screen device.  

    That's possible with win32 and very easy to do. Just look at Firefox and Chrome. A few automated entries into the task scheduler is all it takes.

    You missed the "convenience" and "downloading" and "installing" and the part of "updating" that actually does the update and the "provisioning" and the "from the Windows Store" parts of what I wrote.  Actually, let's just make it simple and assume you didn't read what I wrote at all.

    Actually, most of what you wrote was based solely on your own opinion of the matter.  And as I stated before:  "They may not be things that you care about, but other people do."

    EDIT:  I see, quite typically of you, that you feel the need to move off topic.  Either talk about Windows 10 apps or create a new thread, please.


  • the new metro apps are pretty lame...

    , NoelCarboni wrote

    Who in their right mind would feel good using a "new" system that provides no actual improvements in capability while at the same time overtly degrading things that people really need?  Then to top it off with a promise to thwart the OS stability that has always allowed environment and infrastructure to grow?

    There are real improvements:

    • the enhanced security sandbox
    • an application model that allows the OS to suspend/resume/kill apps as needed when battery and memory are running low
    • the ability to run the same application on different form factors (phones, tablets, PCs, Xbox One, HoloLens, IoT, etc.) with adaptive user interfaces
    • better support for touch
    • convenience in downloading/installing/updating/provisioning from the Windows Store (without the need for UAC)
    • live tiles, lock screen notifications, toast notifications
    • and more

    They may not be things that you care about, but other people do.

    As for degrading things that people actually need, please point me to a UWP app that prevented you from installing or using your Win32 applications that you love.  The existence of the apps you hate doesn't change the fact that your Windows 7 desktop apps still work just fine.

    And there is absolutely nothing about UWP that "thwarts the OS stability".  Please, now you're just making stuff up.