I have been reading some news on Windows Polaris on Windows Central. As they report, it is stripped down OS to components where they will remove the legacy elements and make Windows a true modern OS. Polaris on the other hand will be a light weight Windows OS desktop without the Win32 stuff.
I haven’t read any article on Thurrot.com so far on this. I would love to know what Thurrot and the team thinks about this.
Link below
https://www.windowscentral.com/understanding-windows-core-os-and-polaris
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#240765"><em>In reply to jimchamplin:</em></a></blockquote><p>I'd be surprised if they removed all the Win32-based system components. Despite all the .NET promotion over the years, the Windows group has never embraced .NET except as a layer on top of the mostly C-based system components. </p><p><br></p><p>It makes sense IMO, you want to minimize the overhead of both size and processing at the lowest level of an OS.</p>
skane2600
<p>IMO, Microsoft hasn't had a consistent vision since Windows 7. It's like they're flailing around trying to latch on to whatever flotsam and jetsam they can find. The last thing Microsoft needs is another Windows variant.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#240814"><em>In reply to ponsaelius:</em></a></blockquote><p>Perhaps I'm being pedantic, but Google doesn't have a "browser based OS", but they do have an OS whose only application is a browser. </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#240884"><em>In reply to hrlngrv:</em></a></blockquote><blockquote>Yes, I should have stated that the browser was the primary application. </blockquote>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#240885"><em>In reply to hrlngrv:</em></a></blockquote><p>IMO, it's a trade-off that was never necessary to make in the first place. For years Windows has satisfied the needs of both casual and sophisticated users. If casual users found UWP apps significantly easier to use than Win32 apps, they'd be flocking to them. After all, it's the lack of sophisticated apps that are the primary criticism of the store. </p><p><br></p><p>It's really a question of whether Microsoft wants to make Windows just another commodity OS and compete with MacOS, Android and iOS with no legacy advantage, or continue to enjoy the unique benefit of being the only OS that can run most industry-standard and special-purpose programs.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#240941"><em>In reply to hrlngrv:</em></a></blockquote><p>I can't tell exactly what your position is from that post, so what I'm going to say you may already agree with:</p><p><br></p><p>I would argue from a professional developer's perspective, "legacy" and "new" carry no implicit connotations, it all depends on the context. The idea that "new" is always better or "legacy" is always bad is more of a enthusiastic beginners perspective. </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#240992"><em>In reply to hrlngrv:</em></a></blockquote><p>The "perceived" (and real) value of Win32 software is why the Mac never achieved 50% or higher market share. Perhaps if they had become a minor OS player they'd be able to work on the Next Great Thing without that burden of being a highly-successful company.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#240994"><em>In reply to longhorn:</em></a></blockquote><p>I agree with a lot of what you said although I disagree with some of it. I don't know if UWP APIs are written primarily in C or C++, but the latter isn't flaky. In fact sometimes C++ is faster and often less error-prone than C. C++ is a superset of C so there's really nothing that can be written in C that can't be just as efficiently written and executed in C++. </p><p><br></p><p>Sometimes people imagine that C++ implies complicated class hierarchies but not necessarily. At a minimum classes are similar to C structs with the addition of functions. No additional indirection is required unless you add features to the class that requires them.</p>
RR
<blockquote><a href="#241088"><em>In reply to Dan1986ist:</em></a></blockquote><p>I think MSPU is more of a peripheral player here, and generally too, most of the time. I think the site? Writer? has a volume for eyeballs strategy and just pumps out secondary data, often without regard to quality. In this case the writer just read Windows Central like everybody else, and decided to counter program with a sort of half report (you have to look hard for the attribution) half editorial that goes opposite to the Windows Central hype. I wouldn't waste too much time analyzing that for any meaning.The MSPU writer has no independent leads, just his derivative on the same report he read, just like you. If he had written the same blog as a comment in the Windows Central comments section like everyone else, you would not have thought of it beyond that.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#241170"><em>In reply to jimchamplin:</em></a></blockquote><p>If each Win32 process runs in its own sandboxed space, compatibility would be broken because many programs rely on the ability to anonymously interact with other programs as well as accessing cross-program data in a common registry. It might be possible (or maybe not) to design new approaches that still support this kind of interaction and integration but legacy programs wouldn't be able to use them even if such work-arounds existed without being rewritten. </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#241238"><em>In reply to jimchamplin:</em></a></blockquote><p>Yeaaah, you did need to consider it.</p><p><br></p><p>You're getting to the point where you're treating sandboxing and virtualization as Deus ex machinas. </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#241341"><em>In reply to hrlngrv:</em></a></blockquote><p>Thanks for mentioning AutoIt. I've used VBScript for Office automation and Visual Test for testing back in the day but wasn't aware of this tool. I don't have any specific need for it right now but it could come in handy some day.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#241311"><em>In reply to irfaanwahid:</em></a></blockquote><p>Probably because every attempt so far at a stripped-down Windows has failed.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#241472"><em>In reply to hrlngrv:</em></a></blockquote><p>Yes, and plain old telephone service remains the most reliable telephony system. </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#241420"><em>In reply to irfaanwahid:</em></a></blockquote><p>You mean MS is developing new phones? </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#241571"><em>In reply to irfaanwahid:</em></a></blockquote><p>OK.</p>