Mon Jun 16, 2008 4:33PM EDT
See Comments (23)
With XP set to be discontinued in two short weeks, you'd think developers would be rushing to get their wares ready for Vista. And you'd be wrong. According to an eye-popping report from market analysis firm Evans Data, only eight percent of North American software developers are writing for Vista, while a full half are still writing for XP. Read the full press release on the report here (registration required).
That's even lower than the overall market share of Vista, which is currently about 15 percent of all computers connected to the web.
There are no real surprises behind Vista's lack of enthusiasm among developers. The poor showing likely stems from its litany of problems, poor support for older computers and peripherals, and healthy demand for Windows XP, which still owns a 72 percent market share. (Overall Windows development, including server versions, is underway by about 2/3 of all developers, reflecting significant strength in the Mac and Linux markets.)
Cnet's Matt Asay notes that Microsoft may also be at blame for making Vista development too difficult. Quoting an article by ITJungle, he reminds us that Vista's security efforts come at the expense of making software easier to use and to write. Without access to the lowest levels of the operating system plus that UAC "are you sure!?" popup nonsense, developing for Vista represents possibly the largest change to the programming environment since Windows 95.
If I were (still) a programmer I'd probably feel the same way.
Join in the discussion. Here you'll see the comments in the order they were posted.
I only write the occasional Windows command line utilities now and then... Everything else I do is either in Java or some other portable language.
Smack all you want about window vista anyone with a brain understand old computers and OS don't last forever soon you can say good bye to window xp, So to all you window vista hater and including you "Christopher noll" get use to it.
I just disabled the UAC. Hasn't bothered me anymore.
Ah, the cry of those of those in the process of being shipwrecked upon the Microsoft reef. Folks, look land Ho! Its Linux, a safe haven from those turbulent Vista seas. Anti-virus landing craft, licenses and fool hearty booty are not required. Come ashore, be greeted by friends that are not out for your treasure.
ummm. Nobody writes just for one version of the OS. It's like saying, hey, my new Mac app will only run on the latest version of Mac OS X (10.5) but will not run on 10.4. That's just stupid, and unlikely to happen. With Windows' backwards compatability, even old apps will still work in Vista. Before Vista, in the time of XP, nobody wrote apps that will only run on XP. The large majority of apps written for XP would work on Windows 2000 without a problem.
I remember writing very simple assembly language routines, that took advantage of DOS and BIOS interrupts. I could use them, because they were so well documented... fast forward to Windows. Heard of the WINE for Linux? It took ages (15+ years ?) to translate Windows library calls into Linux equivalents, because the Windows ones are so poorly documented. Sure Vista is backwards compatible- but if you want the new "features" you need to program for them. As Chris is saying- there aren't enough new features to offset the headaches of revising the design. Keeping the old code gives you a wider audience.
will_luu . . . the article is about writers not bothering to write software for windows vista . . . backwards compatibility with vista is weak at best . . .
Now that's something I haven't heard of. Makes sense though.
You guys should really examine the .Net framework before we get into conversations about compatibility- Also- alan_r_cam- I agree with you that previously many of the Microsoft routines, interfaces, functions and general frameworks have been extremely poorly documented. It has gotten somewhat better I would say over the past ten years. It certainly is not perfect today - but it has gotten better. This conversation can quickly turn into an open source vs closed source discussion that opens up a whole can of worms. But ultimately the .Net framework is better than previous coding initiatives like DNA and its wonderful predecessors.
1 Posted by kupriaa1 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:54PM EDT Report Abuse
Hey Chris, .Net Framework? Ever hear about it?