MS to Give Windows 10 a ‘Modern’ Overhaul with Light Weight Polaris Windows Core

Re:MS to Give Windows 10 a ‘Modern’ Overhaul with Light Weig... by ctrl-j on Monday January 29, 2018 @11:15AM (#16258312)

You've misunderstood. Win32 isn't 32-bit architecture. Win32 is the non UWP windows API.

Photoshop, Visual Studio, Chrome.. you name it. Pretty much ALL executables fall into this category. Unless it's a UWP app.

Almost all modern games will fall into this category.

EDIT: To further explain, You still use Win32 for 64-bit processes. It's just a stupid name.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:MS to Give Windows 10 a ‘Modern’ Overhaul with Light Weig... by kalcode on Monday January 29, 2018 @12:01PM (#16258709)

Opps. Yah I messed up the naming, I meant exes, but just started typing 64 vs 32 which really is only a memory thing, if you simplify it.

Converting a Win32 exe using UWP Desktop Bridge is stupid easy though. Older exe with a lot of legacy dependencies may be more difficult or lack of source code. In which case they need a virtualization to run those legacy app.

So even though all games/apps fall into this category most companies could have a UWP build ready very quickly.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:MS to Give Windows 10 a ‘Modern’ Overhaul with Light Weig... by dmitrygr on Monday January 29, 2018 @05:16PM (#16261142)

You do not understand how said "bridge" works...

It just wraps the app, but underneath still calls those same win32 APIs. If you remove the APIs, "bridged" apps won't work. Hence why TFA mentions that not all win32 API can be removed and it isn't clear which will be.

So "bridging" your win32 app will not somehow make it immune to win32 api going away.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:MS to Give Windows 10 a ‘Modern’ Overhaul with Light Weig... by jdmichal on Monday January 29, 2018 @11:36AM (#16258472)

Well, the name made fine sense when it was introduced... Maybe it serves as a good warning to not include such things as dates and hardware versions in names at all.

[ Parent | on HN ]