xsharp.eu

The first customers ask us, if they can use Windows 11 computers - and there are already customers who are using Windows 11 computers.
As a first summary of experience:
Windows 11 seems to work fine and seems to support most of the existing programs. I have upgraded my private notebook without problems in less than an hour and all existing programs seem still to exist and work.

With our application "RADIX" written in X# until now there were only few issues:
- Images imported as Ole objects in Crystal Reports had to be converted to "device independent objects"
- The Internet Explorer control now gives some modal messages when loading google maps instead of showing some incompatibility remarks.
- The OS version info returns 10.0. Probably an extra ID has to be added to the manifest in the exe.

The program looks different as before. All controls have changed in appearance a little bit. But I think it is ok, it's to get used to. The speed of the programs seem to be similar to Windows 10. So hopefully no worrying about the future.

What I do not know is if the development tools (Visual Studio, compiler, ...) still work. This will still take a while for testing, because our company has not allowed to run Windows 11 because of missing Antivirus programs and some other features.

Arne

Hi All,
I have been working with VS2019 16.11.5 and xSharp 2.8c in Windows 11 for a month now. I did not find any differences compared to Windows 10 in WPF applications with the core dialect.

Juraj

If anyone has questions about Windows 11 you have an opportunity to "Ask the Experts" as the (free) on line event Microsoft Ignite starts tomorrow. There are some Windows 11 sessions. https://myignite.microsoft.com/home

I've quickly checked W11 and VO & VS, X# seemed to work ok. If you could still select the W10 start menu and taskbar, which was possible with a simple registry setting during most of the Insider's versions but was later blocked by the Microsoft "apparatchik" as being against the rules, W11 would have been a quite usable Windows version. But Microsoft is well known for unable to learn from mistakes of the past, an unusable menu structure was one of the reasons of why W8 more or less failed and W10 was adopted so slowly in favor of W7.

Dick

Hi Dick,

about your win 8 bashing :

I'm using Win 8.1 x64 for years now and win 8.1 is IMO the most stable MS OS ever. I´ve never seen a BSoD, i´ve never seen any patch day issues, and i´ve never seen any other issues. Ok, i know not many are still using Win8.1, but at least our "repl("F" , 3 )" comrad is still on board .

Sure, on another machine i´m using Win10, but when I look at the - daily - Win10 problems, I´m more and more convinced that somehow MS has lost the control of the Win source code :woohoo:

regards
Karl-Heinz

Sure - 8.1 with classic shell - let's me do my work instead of fighting the OS. But it's getting harder - recently had my system migrated after 8 years from trusty Samsung 830 to a bigger SSD and had to fight hard to hinder them migrating me to Win10

We can also see the positive side of these changes:
Until now over all these years Microsoft has succeeded in defending the presence of "Our OS" MS Windows in the office/desktop sector.
Last year Microsoft has left their original plans of the cloud OS Windows X which would not have been nice for us.
Instead they have developed a new version of a desktop OS that is very similar to Windows 10. Windows 11 should not give us many problems, but should assure that we will still be able to deliver our software in 5 years on Windows computers - no fear of having to move our programs to Linux, Google Chrome, or Apple IOS.

I am not enjoying every change and every new toy Microsoft is delivering. But I must admit that they gave us a much more stable programming base than for example Apple with their radical OS and hardware changes.

Arne

It looks like some messages are missing which I thought I posted...

I wrote "well, W8 bashing...." and something about W8 having 4% market share today while W7 has over 13%. This figures would have been different if they cared to allow a choice between a XP/Vista/W7 style menu and the tile based screen of W8. That W8 was a failure for MS can also be read in posts like these:

https://www.zdnet.com/article/five-reas ... as-failed/
https://www.techrepublic.com/article/mi ... he-decade/

Apart from that I agree with you that priority is not given to improving stability of Windows. Unlike Arne I rarely enjoy changes in a new Windows version and often spend considerable time to roll back some changes to what I liked. This is the main reason I don't like Microsoft. With software it shouldn't be too difficult to allow settings to give the user a choice. This way you can keep almost everyone happy; see e.g. the switches in X# allowing everything from say VO 1.0 to X# Core behavior.

Microsoft on the other hand fights users who want to setup their system differently. If W11 would allow me the current W10 menu & toolbar, which did work with a simple registry setting in Insiders Editions, then I would most likely update to W11 soon. But they deliberately blocked that.

I followed a sessions about Microsoft Power Apps, a simple way to create phone/tablet apps with minimal code. It turns out to be a subscription based environment. They showed for example how much you can do with coloring with disabled controls. But what you still can't do is assigning a tooltip to a control showing the user why it is disabled, as a tooltip stops appearing on a disabled control. I often don' t know why a control is disabled and a tooltip would help a lot. This is an example of the massive attention Microsoft gives to "look and feel" while not giving any attention to anything useful.

Dick

Hello All

Don't forget that many points raised here are relevant to the UI, whether it is Win 7, Win 8, 8.1 or 10.

And it is this, upon which the O/S tends to be judged.

But behind the scenes there are many more factors, and dare I say it?, more important factors MS has to consider such as maintaining or improving stability of the O/S as a whole, security etc. etc. None of this is immediately apparent to the user.

Windows 11 can only run on more recent hardware. It requires access to the BIOS and presumably has a capability to manipulate it. My guess is it allows more unpredictability in the overall system configuration to be introduced, resulting in improved security and greater control over hardware amongst (many) other things.

Just a thought.

Terry

Terry wrote:... dare I say it?, more important factors MS has to consider

True.
But one wonders why they don't take care of the important things and let the user have the interface he wants? This would significantly increase the acceptance of the changeover, and that would be in everyone's interest.

Hi Karl

I guess that's more a question of marketing and latest fashions.

Users quickly get used to things and to newcomers old things look outdated. MS has to keep abreast of, or better still drive such changes if it is to maintain market share.

The penalty is that we have to move with the times. If MS loses new blood it loses revenue and in the worst case collapses as a company. Then we all lose.

MS is one company whose product is software only. Thus it is not tied to a single source hardware supplier, nor does it rely any physical distribution chain which can easily be disrupted. Many would regard this as an enviable position to be in.

Regards


Terry