Desktop Apps Make Their Way Into the Windows Store (arstechnica.com) 75
With Windows 8, Microsoft introduced Windows Store, which consisted of "Metro / Modern UI" apps which worked best on touch capable devices. Since the release of Windows 8, many users complained that they wanted traditional apps -- the applications they had grown accustomed to -- to be included in Windows Store. This would have come in handy to especially Windows RT users, who couldn't easily get traditional applications installed on their devices. Well, guess, what, that's changing now. Though only for Windows 10 users who have gotten the Anniversary Update -- and guess what, many haven't and might not for another month and a half. At any rate, ArsTechnica elaborates: Until now, applications built for and sold through the Windows Store in Windows 10 have been built for the Universal Windows Platform (UWP), the common set of APIs that spans Windows 10 across all the many devices it supports. This has left one major category of application, the traditional desktop application built using the Win32 API, behind. Announced at Build 2015, codename Project Centennial -- now officially titled the Desktop App Converter -- is Microsoft's solution to this problem. It allows developers to repackage existing Win32 applications with few or no changes and sell them through the store. Applications packaged this way aren't subject to all the sandbox restrictions that UWP applications are, ensuring that most will work unmodified. But they are also given the same kind of clean installation, upgrading, and uninstallation that we've all come to expect from Store-delivered software. Centennial is designed to provide not just a way of bringing Win32 apps into the store; it also provides a transition path so that developers can add UWP-based functionality to their old applications on a piecemeal basis. Evernote, one of the launch applications, uses UWP APIs to include support for Live Tiles and Windows' notification system. In this way, developers can create applications that work better on Windows 10 but without having to rewrite them entirely for Windows 10.
Yawn (Score:1)
The real win would be to replace the Windows registry with file-system based configuration.
Re: (Score:2)
That was called Windows 3.x, and it worked very well. Every program had one (or a set) of *.ini files that governed the settings for that program. Need to start fresh? Delete the .ini file. Want to preserve your settings when a new version of a program comes out? Copy the .ini sections that mattered back into place. The registry hides SO much... and if it gets fucked up, pray you have a recent system restore point. If you combine all the advances in crypto with a decent revision control system like G
The last place I'll look is Windows Store... (Score:2, Interesting)
Submission by app appers guy? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you're right, and I guess the OP was just being wishful. But then again, what big advantage is there in loading X86 WIN32 apps via the app store, when an X86 desktop system can load them easily already? If it's simply for the sake of the distribution mechanism (and if MS is going to take a cut), I can't imagine too many wanting to take advantage.
But of course, since RT only supported the app store, and didn't provide a full WIN32 subsystem (or hid it - and reserved it for Office only), then it would
Re: (Score:3)
They would have an app store doing all the updating and marketing previously unknown programs.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure there was an entire win 32 subsystem in there based on the applications available. They have notepad, calculator, remote desktop, character map, ms paint, and a bunch of other system tools like regedit and event viewer that I can't really see them bothering to port unless they could just recompile them. Also, I seem to remember somebody jail breaking an early version and getting a few basic open source programs like putty and scummvm running. I think they really missed the boad by now allowi
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, i remember reading how people 'jailbroke' the Surface, enabling ARM binaries to run. Windows RT no longer is sold but, Continuum.
If Visual Studio provides a checkbox on Visual Studio to compile a binary for ARMv8 then the utility of the Continuum desktop rises. And i'm thinking cross platform software that is already largely ARM-clean by virtue of running on rPi - Geany, pidgin.
But with the death of Lumia for some overpriced vapourware 'surface phone', the horse has probably bolted already. Relaunch th
Not ISA difference but code signing (Score:2)
Those traditional desktop applications are all x86 assemblies. Can't run them on an ARM operating system
True, but not because of the ISA difference. Many developers of Windows desktop applications were willing to recompile them for ARM, just as Mac apps had been recompiled for PowerPC and then for Intel. Microsoft wouldn't let them, and it enforced this through a policy of not allowing any code to execute on the device unless signed by Microsoft, as if it were a g**d*** Xbox.
Re: (Score:3)
No. Many of the apps were developed on previous versions, like Windows 7, and would automatically be x86 only. Not just that, they would be things where you'd either need a CD/DVD/USB or go to their website. None via the app store. Heck, you can't even have MS Office via the app store: the store directs you back to the web site. Windows RT bombed b'cos it couldn't run Windows 7 applications the way Windows 8 could. Only b'cos of the ISA difference.
Also, it's nothing like the Mac apps: they had to r
Re: (Score:2)
No. Many of the apps were developed on previous versions, like Windows 7, and would automatically be x86 only.
How would they "automatically be x86 only" even if recompiled? Did they contain substantial code written in assembly language or something? Or are you assuming that all developers of desktop apps for Windows 7 would have refused to recompile their apps for RT, particularly developers of apps distributed under a free software license?
Vendors who didn't compile for RT just missed a small part of the Surface market
How large was the Surface RT market compared to the Surface Pro market? My claim is that the Surface RT market remained "small" precisely because Microsoft refused to let develo
Re: (Score:2)
No. Many of the apps were developed on previous versions, like Windows 7, and would automatically be x86 only.
How would they "automatically be x86 only" even if recompiled? Did they contain substantial code written in assembly language or something? Or are you assuming that all developers of desktop apps for Windows 7 would have refused to recompile their apps for RT, particularly developers of apps distributed under a free software license?
I wasn't thinking about licenses at all. The mechanism in which Windows 7 apps were developed and installed/distributed was pretty different from the Windows 8 method, which depended on the Windows Store. On Windows 8, though, you could insert the CD of an application developed for Windows 7, and it would work there as well, regardless of whether or not the developers in question touched them. In case of Windows RT, developers would have had to touch them for anything to happen. Just like the story of W
Nobody wants to give Microsoft a cut (Score:1)
Nobody uses the Windows Store because nobody wants to give Microsoft 30% of their revenue. Until this is changed, the Windows Store will be full of tumbleweeds and not applications.
Re: (Score:1)
Or they just change the part where non-store apps are allowed. You know, for security.
Worked for apple they may as well.
Re: Nobody wants to give Microsoft a cut (Score:2)
Solitaire has ads in it now, and you have to pay a monthly fee to remove them.
Re:Nobody wants to give Microsoft a cut (Score:5, Insightful)
Since the release of Windows 8, many users complained that they wanted traditional apps -- the applications they had grown accustomed to -- to be included in Windows Store.
I'd like to meet one of these users. I support Windows machines, and I've never had a customer mention the Windows store. Mostly they just want me to show them how to turn off the creepy stalking crap in Windows 10.
sandbox restrictions went to far so they have to d (Score:2)
sandbox restrictions went to far so they have to do this to save the store.
Must have Win32 apps that need to be in the store (Score:2)
Win Dir Stat or Tree Size
VLC
PeaZip or 7Zip
Audacity
Chrome
FireFox
Pale Moon
Opera or whatever that one browser from that Opera guy is called
A file hash calculator with right-click menu extension built in
SnagIt, GreenShot
A FOSS Bit Torrent client
Various NirSoft Utilities
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever happened to CoolEdit ?
Re:Must have Win32 apps that need to be in the sto (Score:4, Informative)
Adobe bought Cool Edit Pro, renamed it Audition, and put it behind a $240/year Creative Cloud subscription (source [adobe.com]).
Re: (Score:2)
I want Candy Crush on my desktop? (Score:2)
These people need to be MADE to use Pokemon Go on their gaming rig.
I'll watch, thanks. Or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Well making a Metro UI App in .NET isn't just 1 for 1 compatible with their older apps.
That is why .NET sucked. It has failed in the purpose of its design of bytecode compiling. It isn't portable, it isn't portable across 32bit and 64 system, it isn't portable across different screen resolutions, and processors.
I tried doing some metro design a while back... And it limited way too much stuff.
Will anyone use this? (Score:1)
I won't. But maybe I won't have a choice at some point.
App store race to the bottom + unlimited access (Score:3)
This could prove to be quite an amusing turn of events. App stores require isolation to protect users from seedy nature of majority of apps available for free or purchase from the store. Without isolation these platforms would fall apart.
Providing an avenue that allows apps to run as normal software would have provided for some very interesting headlines had anyone actually used Microsoft's store.. Since nobody cares it is a moot point yet still quite interesting Microsoft is crazy enough to even contemplate such madness.
My experience porting Zoom Player to UWP (Score:5, Interesting)
It hasn't been a cake-walk converting Zoom Player (http://zoomplayer.com) to the AppX model.
The 'Desktop Bridge' conversion tool breaks the Executable/AppData folder model introduced in Windows Vista and is completely incompatible with the Windows XP admin access model.
By this I mean that the app can't write any file to the installation folder.
And any files installed to the local AppData folder by the Win32 installer are non-accessible after the conversion to AppX (they are installed in a read-only folder where no API can be used to find the folder's path).
The work-around is to install everything to a single folder and then copy the required files to the local AppData folder on the initial run.
There are other issues dealing with the App's icon in various places, it seems they changed the model and it's impossible (as far as I can tell and as far as my questions get non-answers on the microsoft UWP forum) to present the same icon as a desktop app on the start menu, task bar and elsewhere.
I also found that some 3rd party components (DirectShow filters) don't always work in the virtualized environment, but it's something I'm trying to resolve with the authors.
And finally, there is no clear process to get a store listing for the App.
We filled in the form, got no reply that it was even received, later follow-ups on the MS forum resulting in this:
https://social.msdn.microsoft.... [microsoft.com]
Hopefully they will streamline the process soon.
Re: (Score:1)
madVR?
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, MadVR isn't working.
I contacted the author, so hopefully it will eventually work.
Re: (Score:1)
I was responding to the VLC question
Re:Sounds like a package manager :D (Score:5, Funny)
Imagine that, ANOTHER feature Linux had 20 years ago that Windows is only now getting.
Don't our Linux package managers actually have applications and useful stuff in them?
Your app writes to the install directory for your (Score:3)
Your app writes to the install directory for your app seems like a dumb thing to do. Even more so if each app is per user. So each per user app as data in both the app folder and some user home folder.
Please don't (Score:4, Insightful)
Please don't put any apps on the Windows store. That will only make Microsoft more invested in the idea that the store should be the ONLY way to get apps on Windows. MS big dream is to make that happen and have a 30% cut off all software sales.
Don't facilitate that by putting anything on their store.. just don't.
Re: (Score:2)
UWP "sideloading" being improved too (Score:1)
Supposedly Microsoft is also making UWP apps a bit less of a pain in the ass, and will be allowing 3rd party installations/download/management (IE- Steam) easily.
UWP has come a long way since windows 8 but it's still got a bit of work left. The application model is better for end users. Applications are jailed and run entirely in usermode. You don't need root(administrative privilages) to install them.
Still, UWP is only appropriate for applications that are self contained and live in one window (Really bad
Games used to have there own editor apps (Score:2)
Games used to have there own editor apps and now more have build in ones + some 3rd part or ext modding tools.
But with an store only system that can die / dev's will have to make it all DLC.
Re: (Score:1)
Converted desktop apps are not limited to one window.
Re: (Score:1)
One thing I noticed, though, was you can alt-tab out of UWP games instantly. No video mode switch. No weird issues. Just seamless and fast.
Most games have an option for borderless windowed mode?
Don't do what Donny Don't Did (Score:2, Interesting)
I have a local login for my Windows 10 machine
I remembered that I actually still have a subscription to the MLB tv app. Ok I thought, I guess I should use the app store thing which required logging into my Windows account, ok, no problem.
Had to reboot for some patch install a few days later... long story short they change your login profile from local to Windows without telling you
I was able to set it back up but I absolutely do not trust the Windows store at all now, that kind of garbage is NOT acceptable.
Re: (Score:3)
It very clearly asks you to change your login to a Windows account or login in to that app ONLY. You didn't read and just clicked thru the screen where you choose to convert your account to a Windows account or keep it a local account and login to the Store ONLY.
Smh.
This is the problem with Windows. if someone has a problem, a shill steps out to tell them how stupid they are.
Given the way Windows alerts read, its not surprising people have trouble.
Re: (Score:2)
> This is the problem with Windows. if someone has a problem, a shill steps out to tell them how stupid they are
So, like Linux then?
I've met some. But in my early experiences with linux, my questions were usually met with "That's simple - here;s how you do it, and then launched into a world of strange names and tasks that I had no idea about. But it gets better after a while.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think being able to sell them through the store would be likely to convince any developers to go to the trouble of reworking and recompiling for Arm
I disagree. There are plenty of Android NDK apps that have both ARM and Atom (x86) versions. And do you already forget the transition of macOS from 68K to PowerPC to Intel?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The desktop app converter requires native containers support in Windows which is only available on those platforms.
Wait, there's still a store? (Score:2)
I thought that died with metro, and the icon in win10 was just for people that needed to re-download past purchasing mistakes.
But all they sell are gambling apps! (Score:2)
Maybe they should focus on windows 10 bugs (Score:1)
Like its terrible wifi performance, its shitty printer subsystem, the fact that most updates revert to "Defaults" which always seem to favour microsoft, and the general terrible shit that windows 10 does, maybe they could package Windows 7 in a UWP!!!