So, Windows Phone 7 requires Windows 7/Vista...
-
Nishant Sivakumar wrote:
Well it costs them time and resources to get the emulator to work on XP
I agree with that, but how that will pay off to them? I wonder if the investiment to support XP (or build it to XP and that most stuff is likely to work in W7) wouldn't pay off by having a much wider developer base. I have no idea about the cost impact, I just wonder how much to build an emulator for W7, I mean, every other mobile company (except Apple) did just that. The fact is, that many will not contribute to their market store, I can't say in numbers (humm good poll idea) but I do beleive that there is a reasonable bunch.
I reckon they did a market analysis and decided that they won't lose out on too many devs if they excluded XP.
Regards, Nish
My technology blog: voidnish.wordpress.com
-
What do you mean? It's a consulting company, that develop solution to banks. Yes, we do it all from the company, we're not a resourcing company.
Interesting that you only test and develop on XP then, because it's possible that your end users may be on Vista or Windows 7. Even with .NET you still run into OS compatibility issues sometimes.
Regards, Nish
My technology blog: voidnish.wordpress.com
-
And that emulator is apparently using DirectX 10 or some other post-XP-only technology..
harold aptroot wrote:
And that emulator is apparently using DirectX 10 or some other post-XP-only technology..
I guess so. The devs who wrote it probably decided to do it the fastest way possible :-)
Regards, Nish
My technology blog: voidnish.wordpress.com
-
Interesting that you only test and develop on XP then, because it's possible that your end users may be on Vista or Windows 7. Even with .NET you still run into OS compatibility issues sometimes.
Regards, Nish
My technology blog: voidnish.wordpress.com
Actually, the good thing is that the client is on XP too. And the systems don't really rely on windows, only a few front-ends and most of them are web based.
-
I would say that the majority of developers at least have access to a Windows 7 machine, because as a developer you need to test that your software works at least on the latest platform. I wouldn't expect a developer to work on XP as it's pretty much end of life.
Wout
No. If your a developer for a *mobile* platform, then it doesn't matter what OS version your PC is running - except a developer is more likely to be using a lot of apps that consume a lot of resources. Windows 7 is a lot more resource hungry than Windows XP, so you can have more stuff running on XP. And besides that there is absolutly nothing wrong with XP. It works just fine.
-
No. If your a developer for a *mobile* platform, then it doesn't matter what OS version your PC is running - except a developer is more likely to be using a lot of apps that consume a lot of resources. Windows 7 is a lot more resource hungry than Windows XP, so you can have more stuff running on XP. And besides that there is absolutly nothing wrong with XP. It works just fine.
funny I can remember people saying exactly that about windows NT and windows 7 seems to be able to run on any platform that can run xp, i have a aspire one on which 7 runs better than the xp i had on it before
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start
-
I reckon they did a market analysis and decided that they won't lose out on too many devs if they excluded XP.
Regards, Nish
My technology blog: voidnish.wordpress.com
They might only lose 2-3 people that way, but that's 40% of what they're likely to get as a whole. I can't imagine that there's more than 20 people in the world, developer or otherwise, who care about a windows phone.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
funny I can remember people saying exactly that about windows NT and windows 7 seems to be able to run on any platform that can run xp, i have a aspire one on which 7 runs better than the xp i had on it before
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start
-
I reckon they did a market analysis and decided that they won't lose out on too many devs if they excluded XP.
Regards, Nish
My technology blog: voidnish.wordpress.com
-
Maximilien wrote:
From your current employer ?
No, unless I worked for microsoft
Maximilien wrote:
If not, then you should have read the fine prints.
What's that supposed to mean? All I'm questioning is the decision to support Vista/7 only.
-
I work at major multi-national company that develop critical systems for big bank networks. All PCs are windows XP. So you're saying my job represents the end of life? You would say the majority of developers have access to W7 machine, but I dare you find any evidence of that. Anyways, I do have some limited access to W7 machine, but it is as it is, limited and therfore, not very fit to dedicate my work to develop stuff with that.
I work for a big bank (well medium anyway) network and am slaved to XP, and yes I consider this platform EOL, thank god they have at least made the decision to go to W7, getting it done on such a massive scale will take some doing. I don't see a problem with W7 development needing W7 as a minimum dev platform. If you want to build for the latest I feel it is reasonable to have the latest platform. Think of it as more justification to move to a W7 platform.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
-
Try running 3ds Max, photoshop, OpenOffice, Visual Studio on a PC with Windows 7 and only 4GB of ram and you'll see.
ed welch wrote:
3ds Max, photoshop, OpenOffice, Visual Studio
ed your a bloody masochist, you have just named 4 of the most resource hungry apps invented and you want to starve the memory as well.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
-
Try running 3ds Max, photoshop, OpenOffice, Visual Studio on a PC with Windows 7 and only 4GB of ram and you'll see.
funny that your saying that. i don't seem to have any issues with W7 and running all of those apps at once. As a matter of fact at one time i run: 3 instances of VS2010 Pro Outlook Word Excel Photoshop 64bit Lightwave 3D Deep Exploration 3DS Max Milkshape 3D Firefox (with no less than 8 tabs open at a time) Google Chrome Aptana Studio 2 IconFX Navicat Lite and with all these things running at once on a W7 Ultimate 64bit with 4gigs of ram. and i can safely tell you that i do not even notice the resource drain on my system. I can run VS (x3) each compiling large apps, run deep exploration doing a Full Res HDR 3d Render , and play the Newest Need For Speed Hot Pursuit all at once and W7 just performs like a champion. so i myself do not know where you are getting the run 'these apps all at once' and you will see from.
-
Try running 3ds Max, photoshop, OpenOffice, Visual Studio on a PC with Windows 7 and only 4GB of ram and you'll see.
I run Autocad Maya, Photoshop and visual Studio on Windows 7 with only 2GB of RAM. So far there are no problems because of memory. -Saurabh
-
Well anyone writing code today should surely test it on all OSes they intend to support, and I am sure you do support Vista and Windows 7. Although it's possible that you have others in your dev team who develop on W7 while some of you are left to use older OSes. If so, well not much you can do about that I guess.
Regards, Nish
My technology blog: voidnish.wordpress.com
I think the point is that he wants to support Windows Phone 7. The OS of the development environment has nothing to do with it, and the official SDK should be available for multiple operating systems. I wouldn't buy an apple computer, let alone the most recent, to develop apps for the iphone.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
Yeah, I received a code project offer today about WP7 development. I thought to myself: "Yaayyy!! Let's get cracking" :rolleyes: Then I went to download the SDK just to realize it supports only Windows 7 and Vista. :omg: It completely turned me down. Now I ask you folks, while most other major competitors (except IPhone) allow Windows XP or even older OSes, don't you guys think that this is a shot on the foot? Given that MS have been strugling to get in the mobile market with relevance, I think the worse thing to do would be constraining stuff like this. :doh: Are they trying to sell Windows 7? I would like to beleive they are not. The fact is that MS just lost a contributor.
First, the cost of having to support an EOL OS like XP. Make it only work on Vista and Windows 7, and you save money on support cost. Last I checked, Microsoft was a business, so wanting to say, "Hey, you want to make money from building Windows Phone 7 apps, have the decency to support us to by buying a latest version of our OS that we support". When did it become so one-sided that Microsoft should make it easier to develop on Windows 7 phones just because they screwed up big time on Windows Mobile 6? Otherwise, it would be just as fair an argument from those on DOS 3.3 demanding that if Microsoft is going to support an unsupported EOL OS like XP, why stop there? There are still plenty of large businesses and government agencies running on DOS machines (sad, but true - Don't believe me? Ask the New Zealand Health Board what they run the patient health records on.) Second, don't like that you have to get Vista or Windows 7, then I am sure Microsoft would happily suggest Android SDK. As for Microsoft's attempt to get people to upgrade, sounds like a smart move to tie it in with the development SDKs. I am not convinced that Windows Phone 7 is the right platform to put my development efforts at this stage, but requiring me to use a supported OS to use their SDK seems not only reasonable but appropriate.
James Wallis Martin JB Metrics Ltd, Director www.jbmetrics.com
-
Yeah, I received a code project offer today about WP7 development. I thought to myself: "Yaayyy!! Let's get cracking" :rolleyes: Then I went to download the SDK just to realize it supports only Windows 7 and Vista. :omg: It completely turned me down. Now I ask you folks, while most other major competitors (except IPhone) allow Windows XP or even older OSes, don't you guys think that this is a shot on the foot? Given that MS have been strugling to get in the mobile market with relevance, I think the worse thing to do would be constraining stuff like this. :doh: Are they trying to sell Windows 7? I would like to beleive they are not. The fact is that MS just lost a contributor.
What? How can any serious developer still be on *only* XP? Get with the current century, man!
-
What? How can any serious developer still be on *only* XP? Get with the current century, man!
I know, do you think I develop on WinXP because I want to? Workplace and time restrictions make me stuck with it. But that doesn't mean I don't take new stuff serious. But I think this deviates from the original inquiry as how development OS version should play any role on the developmento to another OS (mobile).
-
I work for a big bank (well medium anyway) network and am slaved to XP, and yes I consider this platform EOL, thank god they have at least made the decision to go to W7, getting it done on such a massive scale will take some doing. I don't see a problem with W7 development needing W7 as a minimum dev platform. If you want to build for the latest I feel it is reasonable to have the latest platform. Think of it as more justification to move to a W7 platform.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
It's not Windows 7 development, but Windows Phone 7 development, another OS entirely. We're just using another OS to do the development for mobile. So the development OS shouldn't play any part on that.
-
First, the cost of having to support an EOL OS like XP. Make it only work on Vista and Windows 7, and you save money on support cost. Last I checked, Microsoft was a business, so wanting to say, "Hey, you want to make money from building Windows Phone 7 apps, have the decency to support us to by buying a latest version of our OS that we support". When did it become so one-sided that Microsoft should make it easier to develop on Windows 7 phones just because they screwed up big time on Windows Mobile 6? Otherwise, it would be just as fair an argument from those on DOS 3.3 demanding that if Microsoft is going to support an unsupported EOL OS like XP, why stop there? There are still plenty of large businesses and government agencies running on DOS machines (sad, but true - Don't believe me? Ask the New Zealand Health Board what they run the patient health records on.) Second, don't like that you have to get Vista or Windows 7, then I am sure Microsoft would happily suggest Android SDK. As for Microsoft's attempt to get people to upgrade, sounds like a smart move to tie it in with the development SDKs. I am not convinced that Windows Phone 7 is the right platform to put my development efforts at this stage, but requiring me to use a supported OS to use their SDK seems not only reasonable but appropriate.
James Wallis Martin JB Metrics Ltd, Director www.jbmetrics.com
jbmetrics wrote:
First, the cost of having to support an EOL OS like XP
I'm aware of that. The point is the impact of not supporting an OS on free apps on the market. I think one of the main concearns of success of a mobile platform is the availability of mass free apps. See Android and IPhone.
jbmetrics wrote:
"Hey, you want to make money from building Windows Phone 7 apps, have the decency to support us to by buying a latest version of our OS that we support"
Actually its mostly the other way around. How many free applications are there in Android and IPhone market? The majority is free if compared to paid ones. Developers are mostly contributing, not making money, so why not: "How about you let us choose the OS to help YOU make money".
jbmetrics wrote:
When did it become so one-sided that Microsoft should make it easier to develop on Windows 7 phones just because they screwed up big time on Windows Mobile 6
Maybe to gain some market share? If you make things difficult, don't you agree that you attract less developers?
jbmetrics wrote:
Otherwise, it would be just as fair an argument from those on DOS 3.3 demanding that if Microsoft is going to support an unsupported EOL OS like XP, why stop there?
You're stretching too far. There's still a massive amount of XP users yet, and I don't beleive XP pose any technological constraint for development.
jbmetrics wrote:
Second, don't like that you have to get Vista or Windows 7, then I am sure Microsoft would happily suggest Android SDK
If they wanted that why would they enter the fight at all? This is simply nonsense. It's not that I don't want to use Vista or 7, but as others I currently don't have too much access to it. And it's not about me, it's about developers stuck on XP.
jbmetrics wrote:
As for Microsoft's attempt to get people to upgrade, sounds like a smart move to tie it in with the development SDKs
I think that won't bring big bucks to MS, the majority of Windows users are not developers, developers are just tiny bit of the pie. And it's more likely to developers not use an SDK than upgrade because of it. It's like live mesh. I'll simply use Dropbox instead, because even havi