It was not only about the start screen itself, but also the "Metro" apps being all fullscreen, even when it made no sense (ie. non-games mostly). It was distracting when launching some app from the desktop (like clicking a web link which launched the Metro-style IE browser, or launching a pdf document and it would use some Metro-style viewer by default) would jump to the fullscreen Metro-view. It was awful for a desktop/laptop user, no way around that. Ok for tablet and smartphone users, I guess.

And then later it seemed MS introduced as some kind of new innovative marvel how you can actually run two full-screen Metro apps side by side so that they share the screen! Wheee! How about, like, letting us just run them in damn windows, like we have done for years/decades already?

That's exactly why I personally like Windows 10 much better than Windows 8.x: it allows running those pesky "Metro" apps in windows. It should have been like this from the very beginning, ever since Windows 8 came out.

Ok then, hopefully it also stays that way...

Yes, it is enabled by default. Upon resetting my Windows 10 PC, most toggles were brought back to their regular defaults (such as the use Start in full screen toggle being off to begin with, instead of me tailoring it to on). Yes as well. Through sideloading? I don't know. Nobody bothered to develop for the ecosystem using the sideload feature, they're instead too busy with bashing it instead of giving it a chance for anyone to try it out.

He was talking originally about the 'tile-based interface,' which is merely the Start Screen. In any case, I agree with what you mentioned, these apps weren't originally primed to take advantage of Windows; but regardless, it seemed that most complaints behind Windows 8 stemmed from the new Start Screen first and the apps were an afterthought. Hopefully, Win32 and Modern versions of the apps were provided, even evident in one of Windows 8.1's later updates. And this is where things are going, in a better way as well.

I personally hate both Java and Unity. And if I didn't think Java was bad enough, Eclipse eclipsed it in crappiness. C# to me is like a better Java, but I know there was some issue with making it cross platform (hence the Mono project on Linux? Not sure if that was for C# or the .NET framework).

I think for Microsoft developers the UWA is a useful tool. Not so much for the PC community at large, but I see the benefits of bringing XB1 and future console titles to PC. For touchscreen devices it also seems like it won't be a problem. And if phones ever get powerful enough to match modern pcs then you can play Gears of War on them. :D

Now I read a bit more about it and it seems like Microsoft does not allow third party software to access the full functionality of their Windows Runtime which would be needed for creating Metro style apps, but only their own C++ Runtime which must be used with their own tools, seriously hindering further development of several good third party softwares like Delphi (https://www.delphitools.info/2012/08/23/why-no-native-winrt-support-in-delphi-xe3/) gcc, clang (http://www.itwriting.com/blog/6347-third-party-compilers-locked-out-of-windows-runtime-development.html) and others.

Well this is probably a good example of the bad sides of this. A walled garden, especially if the walls are too high, always kills creativity in the long run. It's a try to get a monopoly and that is usually considered something bad, due to too high prices and too low innovativity.

Microsoft are mostly thinking about their own well-being (of course) and not about the benefits for the devs or customers.

I think, even if there is no hard proof (probably never will), it's very plausible to expect a lot of bad things coming out of this.

It seems very clear that Microsoft (MS) will once again split the community with this effort. That is not good news for the platform. XP and XBox did OK after some revisions; Vista, 8 and Windows Phone failed; and 10 does not seem to be the savior MS needed.

I think UWP solves some real problems with the Windows platform. Problems that MS caused in a way (for example, the expectation of running as Admin — as mentioned by the arstechnica article — comes from its single-user approach is so similar to the spaces in file/folder names and 8.3 file name limits and the CON & friends special file names). Unix has had multi-user systems, jails/sand boxes (also mentioned in the same article) and virtual desktops for decades. Microsoft chose the simpler solution and fight with developers dragging their feet to change their practices. (MS should not take all the blame here) But the tight control of the platform does not exist.

MS is struggling to lock users to their platform. Many have left for Google or Apple (not for Linux or BSD, sadly). This is MS's final (or near final) fight to remain relevant in a changing world. Valve caught wind of this effort and left a door open for dissidents to move to Linux. That was quite wise and clever of them.

I would also like to take to opportunity to reinforce some of the concerns that were expressed here: developers can break or make UWA. I'm guessing they will break them in the first years, not taking the time to adapt them to each platform. "Write once, run anywhere" is a myth for interactive applications. For each additional platform, you will have to revise all the user interface, or risk negative reviews from users trying to run CorelDraw on their XBox. Yes, they can make the app run in several platforms. Will they buy the devices, use them to test their apps and make a real effort to use each platform's strengths to the user's benefit? Won't that make the apps more expensive, when developers mostly profit from casual "freemium" games? Real gamers won't stop using Steam and GOG. Real Pros know what they want and purchase their applications from the developers, who want to avoid the big (unneeded until now) MS cut. Who is left? The casual PC users. They are many, but they won't spend much. Will they be able to keep the platform afloat until it reaches maturity and profitability? And how long will it be that way?

I can see some people benefiting from this initiative, and UWA has some potential. But personally I don't like it, I won't use it and I won't recommend it to anyone, simply because it leads to the "walled gardens". Microsoft wants to be Apple, only its followers are not as loyal and have more alternatives.


It was for the .NET framework. Most of the controversy was surrounding the ASP.NET. However, I have not heard much from this project in recent years.

No one said traditional PC apps are going anywhere. They're going to be around forever. I don't understand the problem if someone wants to create a game in that way, why can't they? How many games actually get modded these days anymore? Barely anything... It's all cloud connected - don't run your own server - casual access rules all gaming world now.

And with UWP there is nothing that prevents anyone from modding things..

Nobody reads positive posts.

Another thing too, this isn't anything new. Win32, Microsoft platform. .NET, Microsoft platform. Wine on Linux runs Win32 apps, Mono runs on everything and implements .NET. I'm sure that with UWP, (since Microsoft purchased Xamarin a week ago) they are going to expose UWP (which runs on .NET Core, not .NET Framework, and .NET Core already runs on Linux and Mac OS) to more platforms. Heck, SQL Server was just announced this week for Linux. Office is available for IOS and Android...

I think Microsoft realizes that it's less about the operating system now, and more about the apps. I don't think these things would have happened in the ballmer era... Just look at how much code Microsoft hosts on GitHub...

It's not hard for developers to code an app that compiles to a UWP app & out to .NET Core on other platforms and sell both, one in the MS store, another in their personal store, another in the Steam store, etc... As a developer, I'm excited for this.

Bah... developers already have problems making console ports suit PC controls. And they wanna unify everything, It's simply hilarious. Especially when mobile crap come into mind. Anyone will know it's receipe for disaster. I'm a purist and rather not have to mingle with mobiles when it comes to play or work.

Glad I ignored Windows 10 entirely. I knew there were ceveats when it comes to free stuff especially after seeing the F2P market for games. If the game is not open and I can't see the files and folders, mingle with the .ini files, mod it however I want, use Fraps or Shadowplay with it, I'd get very pissed off.

What makes you so certain of that? As far as I can tell, in the long run it would make more sense to Microsoft to gradually move people away from Win32 apps, to (mostly MS-controlled) UWAs. Or is there some reason why it would benefit MS to keep supporting Win32 for the foreseeable future, other than the fact that most PC users still require such legacy support (at least for now)?

To me this is more like how Windows 9x supported DOS games and applications just fine... but it was evident to everyone already at that point that the meaning was that DOS was on its way out, it was merely supported for legacy reasons. Later with Windows XP, MS finally gave a farewell middle finger to DOS legacy support, obviously believing most PC users wouldn't mind anymore (and those who did, would continue using Win98SE for awhile longer).

I'm not sure if you are being serious or sarcastic. So you claim that e.g. the unofficial user-made fixes for various (even pretty new) PC games allowing e.g. to run the game in higher resolutions and/or 60 fps instead of 30 fps, would have been just as easily done for UWA games?

Also if user mods are such a rarity nowadays, why are Steam and Bethesda investing so much on frameworks and utilities for modding, even storefronts so that people can make money with their mods?

Two different kinds of mods. Developer approved ones (see Bethesda games and XCOM2 for examples) and hacked exe ones (see DSFix and VtM: Bloodlines). One of those doesn't care about UWA, one does.

The point is to provide the tools to these developers to mitigate said problems, no disasters sighted for such issues. You can see the files and folders, you can use the Game Bar on them for recording, and if I remember well, perhaps use Fraps on them (though that's for Windows 8.1 apps). It's all up to time to let us see what Microsoft will do regarding all of this.

But again, Universal Apps can be sideloaded, bypassing Microsoft's hold completely.

Mods are such a rarity.

Let's ignore the implications that Steam Workshop is counterintuitive to the idea of mods by being limited and not customizable or whatnot. Let's lump all mods into one category just so called mods.

How many games get mods that change the scope of gameplay entirely? And by that I don't mean new weapons or new skins. I mean entirely new things. Looking in further, the only game I could mention whose scope of mods is near-infinite is Minecraft; thanks to Mojang being open to mods, the game can be modded in a billion ways to create infinite results.

What about the other games though? Let's just say at best, they're getting a framerate unlock that allows them to go 60fps, or a resolution unlock to take them further into 1080p and beyond. Both mods are kind of useless and contribute nothing significant unless you're a graphics purist.

The Workshop effort is just another effort to capture customers into the Steam territory and force them to obtain even mods from there. Valve will stop at nothing to put any feature to help them achieve customer lock-in, no matter how significant or insignificant. You should know about this, I believe.