February 19, 2001

9:47 AM

Windows XP Dev Intro Article introduces some of the new issues associated with developing apps for the next generation Microsoft OS. An excerpt from the article reads "Writing applications for Windows XP requires a few new tricks, but they're not difficult. More important is the message we've been repeating over and over, especially since the introduction of Windows 2000: the more your applications behave like good citizens, the more successfully they'll run on Windows XP. Windows XP applications should to follow the rules you learned in kindergarten: share your resources, play well with others, and follow the rules. It's all about cooperation." Lovely.
posted by tatochip (12 comments total)

The Microsoft brand of arrogance is alive and well.
posted by saturn5 at 10:01 AM on February 19, 2001

That seems to be a move in the opposite direction from say, just about every other OS in existence, in which each program can pretend like it has the whole computer to itself. Really, isn't that the whole point of preemptive multitasking and memory protection? Even Apple is moving to that model (the current MacOS is cooperatively multitasked, and the upcoming MacOS X is preemptively multitasked). Here MS is telling developers to minimize CPU usage when their application is in the background. Hello? Applications should not have to know or care if they are in the background or not. The OS is supposed to take care of things like that for them -- haven't they ever heard of process priority levels?
posted by Potsy at 10:11 AM on February 19, 2001

"Windows XP applications should to follow the rules you learned in kindergarten: share your resources, play well with others, and follow the rules. It's all about cooperation."

"Do as we say, not as we do."
posted by harmful at 10:58 AM on February 19, 2001

This coming from the people who want to introduce the Secure Audo Path (SAP) feature for Windows Media, kinda hypocritical no?
posted by riffola at 11:06 AM on February 19, 2001

Actually, Windows XP is supposed to ship with the new .NET SDK, which will allow development of a whole new type of windows programs that include much needed support for versioning and side by side component execution. I like everything I have read about .NET, but I think I have grown skeptical of Microsoft's promises over the years. We'll see...
posted by phunkone at 11:18 AM on February 19, 2001

Agreed phunkone - step back to look at the big picture coming out of Microsoft, self-contradictory, arrogant, dictatorial and just plain dumb as it is in parts, including the actual facts rather than the hype about .NET, and it promises to be an incredibly exciting few years ahead for those of us who work with MS technologies (by choice or otherwise) to earn their daily bread. Most of the really new cool stuff won't work properly until version 3.0, as always, but that's part of the game, unfortunately.

Yet another "Gee, Micro$oft is bad and un-1337 LOL" comment just bores the pants offa me, personally. And nobody wants to see me without pants, trust me.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 2:40 PM on February 19, 2001

"New to the Windows XP are buttons and tabs that change color when the pointer rolls over them in much the same way as hot spots on a Web page."

Looks like OS GUI technology has reached the level of JavaScript rollovers! Finally!

And Potsy, you're absolutely correct. What in the hell is MS thinking with this process model? A process should act like the addressable memory space is its personal byotch! This OS looks silly. MS finally did Windows right (mostly) with Win2k, and XP is just sensory overload. Does anyone really need something like this?

I don't really know what specific point I'm trying to make, but it's in there somewhere.
posted by Succa at 3:15 PM on February 19, 2001

They wanted to take the interface somewhere, they had to, everyone knows the windows 95 look. They needed something new, a new selling point for the average joe. Both you and I know they went the wrong way, but what can we do. Hopefully they will come up with a decent interface for the next version after they realize this one sucks... maybe not.
posted by bytecode at 4:32 PM on February 19, 2001

The theme file formats are not public; Microsoft retains the design control for themes, to allow a consistent user interface and the able to ensure design continuity. A theme developer's kit will not be available with Windows XP.

Those bastards!
posted by gleemax at 4:47 PM on February 19, 2001

Hopefully they will come up with a decent interface for the next version after they realize this one sucks... maybe not.

Flashback to 1994 when the same comments were made about the "confusing" new Windows 95 UI. The most technical people are generally the most resistant to change.
posted by milnak at 5:21 PM on February 19, 2001

Thats true dude, but I happened to like the Win 95 desktop when I first ran it, but I don't have the same feelings for windows xp. Maybe the finished product will be better.
gleemax: I doubt it will take long for someone to hack the theme files and release a editor for them.
posted by bytecode at 7:36 PM on February 19, 2001

What exactly is arrogant and dictatorial about having guidelines (which aren't enforced!) for programs? Sure, MS has always broken their rules, too, but generally much less annoyingly than some other companies... Ever installed Corel Office on your PC?? It's ten times more annoying than what MS Office does to your desktop... an icon for every application and document type in your system tray??? That's just mean. And what about RealPlayer? Geeeez. It takes me a full ten minutes to make the thing behave close to how it should by default. And I've had lots of practice at it.

But regardless, the point of guidelines is to provide some standards that will make users like your software better because it integrates better with the OS and acts more like other software on their PC. That's a good thing. As for protected memory, etc., sure applications can do whatever they want. But there are tons of shared resources and interface assumptions that should be respected. That's the point.
posted by daveadams at 8:41 PM on February 19, 2001