So any clue what the beta plan is for Win8?

NTDEV
1

'cause as things stand right now it looks like win8 is going to be
released before any of us out here have a chance to even start
developing support for it.

http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/23/ballmer-next-generation-of-windows-systems-coming-next-year/

Mark Roddy

2

That does seem to be the plan. It cannot possibly get derailed from being
‘on time’ if the first release is the first we see. All ‘comments’ (ahem,
bugs, WFTs? Etc.) relegated to SP2 no doubt as SP1 must already be decided.

Dave Cattley

-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
[mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Mark Roddy
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 9:05 PM
To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
Subject: [ntdev] So any clue what the beta plan is for Win8?

'cause as things stand right now it looks like win8 is going to be
released before any of us out here have a chance to even start
developing support for it.

http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/23/ballmer-next-generation-of-windows-system
s-coming-next-year/

Mark Roddy

NTDEV is sponsored by OSR

For our schedule of WDF, WDM, debugging and other seminars visit:
http://www.osr.com/seminars

To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer

3

Sounds about right.

Mm
On May 23, 2011 9:05 PM, “Mark Roddy” wrote:
> 'cause as things stand right now it looks like win8 is going to be
> released before any of us out here have a chance to even start
> developing support for it.
>
>
http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/23/ballmer-next-generation-of-windows-systems-coming-next-year/
>
>
> Mark Roddy
>
> —
> NTDEV is sponsored by OSR
>
> For our schedule of WDF, WDM, debugging and other seminars visit:
> http://www.osr.com/seminars
>
> To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer

4

The trade press is talking is mentioning beta corresponding with the PDC
in September, and the release mid-year 2012. That is pretty close the
length of beta’s we have had for previous OS’es.

Don Burn (MVP, Windows DKD)
Windows Filesystem and Driver Consulting
Website: http://www.windrvr.com
Blog: http://msmvps.com/blogs/WinDrvr

“Martin O’Brien” wrote in message
news:xxxxx@ntdev:

> Sounds about right.
>
> Mm
> On May 23, 2011 9:05 PM, “Mark Roddy” wrote:
> > 'cause as things stand right now it looks like win8 is going to be
> > released before any of us out here have a chance to even start
> > developing support for it.
> >
> >
> http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/23/ballmer-next-generation-of-windows-systems-coming-next-year/
> >
> >
> > Mark Roddy
> >
> > —
> > NTDEV is sponsored by OSR
> >
> > For our schedule of WDF, WDM, debugging and other seminars visit:
> > http://www.osr.com/seminars
> >
> > To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
> http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer

5

On 05/24/2011 03:48 AM, Don Burn wrote:

The trade press is talking is mentioning beta corresponding with the PDC
in September, and the release mid-year 2012. That is pretty close the
length of beta’s we have had for previous OS’es.

Good. Then hopefully USB3 is supported by the OS directly, and if
anybody wants to use this, we can just forward them to Win8.

6

Where “previous os’s” is the set of “win7”.

Mark Roddy

On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 9:48 PM, Don Burn wrote:
> The trade press is talking is mentioning beta corresponding with the PDC in
> September, and the release mid-year 2012. ?That is pretty close the length
> of beta’s we have had for previous OS’es.
>
>
> Don Burn (MVP, Windows DKD)
> Windows Filesystem and Driver Consulting
> Website: http://www.windrvr.com
> Blog: http://msmvps.com/blogs/WinDrvr
>
>
>
> “Martin O’Brien” wrote in message
> news:xxxxx@ntdev:
>
>> Sounds about right.
>>
>> Mm
>> On May 23, 2011 9:05 PM, “Mark Roddy” wrote:
>> > 'cause as things stand right now it looks like win8 is going to be
>> > released before any of us out here have a chance to even start
>> > developing support for it.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/23/ballmer-next-generation-of-windows-systems-coming-next-year/
>> >
>> >
>> > Mark Roddy
>> >
>> > —
>> > NTDEV is sponsored by OSR
>> >
>> > For our schedule of WDF, WDM, debugging and other seminars visit:
>> > http://www.osr.com/seminars
>> >
>> > To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
>> http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
>
>
> —
> NTDEV is sponsored by OSR
>
> For our schedule of WDF, WDM, debugging and other seminars visit:
> http://www.osr.com/seminars
>
> To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
> http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
>

7

True. The Vista beta was something of a marathon, at least compared to the
one for Win7, not that that was a bad thing (for me, at least).

mm

-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
[mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Mark Roddy
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 11:55 AM
To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
Subject: Re: [ntdev] So any clue what the beta plan is for Win8?

Where “previous os’s” is the set of “win7”.

Mark Roddy

On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 9:48 PM, Don Burn wrote:
> The trade press is talking is mentioning beta corresponding with the PDC
in
> September, and the release mid-year 2012. ?That is pretty close the length
> of beta’s we have had for previous OS’es.
>
>
> Don Burn (MVP, Windows DKD)
> Windows Filesystem and Driver Consulting
> Website: http://www.windrvr.com
> Blog: http://msmvps.com/blogs/WinDrvr
>
>
>
> “Martin O’Brien” wrote in message
> news:xxxxx@ntdev:
>
>> Sounds about right.
>>
>> Mm
>> On May 23, 2011 9:05 PM, “Mark Roddy” wrote:
>> > 'cause as things stand right now it looks like win8 is going to be
>> > released before any of us out here have a chance to even start
>> > developing support for it.
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/23/ballmer-next-generation-of-windows-system
s-coming-next-year/
>> >
>> >
>> > Mark Roddy
>> >
>> > —
>> > NTDEV is sponsored by OSR
>> >
>> > For our schedule of WDF, WDM, debugging and other seminars visit:
>> > http://www.osr.com/seminars
>> >
>> > To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
>> http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
>
>
> —
> NTDEV is sponsored by OSR
>
> For our schedule of WDF, WDM, debugging and other seminars visit:
> http://www.osr.com/seminars
>
> To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
> http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
>

—
NTDEV is sponsored by OSR

For our schedule of WDF, WDM, debugging and other seminars visit:
http://www.osr.com/seminars

To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer

8

/slightly ot

Bugs and all aside, there are other design decisions that impact software development for the upcoming OS. For instance, the leaked builds have not had .NET 2/3/3.5 installed, shipping with only .NET 4.0

For people that have been relying on .NET 2 being supported “by default” on XP (on anything but a newly-formatted machine) and up, a non-backwards compatible .NET 4.0 would be a real drag.

9

While it might be inconvenient, I fail to see the big deal in this. It’s easy to check to see which version(s) of .Net are installed, and to fire-up a procedure for your customer to install the prerequisites if what you need isn’t there.

Sure, I wish they’d have 3.5 installed as well as 4.0 – and they might, what do we know. But if it’s only 4.0, either rebuild your stuff or fire-off the install.

Peter
OSR

10

well … some of us are already working in providing support for it

11

On 05/25/2011 02:24 AM, xxxxx@osr.com wrote:

[quote] a non-backwards compatible .NET 4.0 would be a real drag.
[/quote]

While it might be inconvenient, I fail to see the big deal in this.
It’s easy to check to see which version(s) of .Net are installed, and
to fire-up a procedure for your customer to install the prerequisites
if what you need isn’t there.

Sure, I wish they’d have 3.5 installed as well as 4.0 – and they
might, what do we know. But if it’s only 4.0, either rebuild your
stuff or fire-off the install.

Ahem… this is what Microsoft says about it:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff602939.aspx

The .NET Framework 4 is backward-compatible with applications that
were built with the .NET Framework versions 1.1, 2.0, 3.0, and 3.5.
In other words, applications and components built with previous
versions of the .NET Framework will work on the .NET Framework 4.

However, in practice, this compatibility can be broken by seemingly
inconsequential changes in the .NET Framework and changes in
programming techniques. For example, performance improvements in the
.NET Framework 4 can expose a race condition that did not occur on
earlier versions. Similarly, using a hard-coded path to .NET
Framework assemblies, performing an equality comparison with a
particular version of the .NET Framework, and getting the value of a
private field by using reflection are not backward-compatible
practices. In addition, each version of the .NET Framework includes
bug fixes and security-related changes that can affect the
compatibility of some applications and components.

You should test your .NET Framework applications and components to
ensure that they are compatible with other versions of the .NET
Framework. To ensure that an application or component successfully
runs on the .NET Framework 4, use the .NET Framework 4 Application
Compatibility Walkthrough.

If your application or component does not work as expected on the
.NET Framework 4, use the following checklists.

=> Anyone who relies on .NET 2.0 should check if the .NET 4.0
compatibility is “good enough”.
If not, it might be a good idea to make sure it’s compatible.

12

Hagen, thank you for bringing this to my attention! I ended up coming to this page:

http://neilblackburn.blogspot.com/2009/10/net-framework-40-backward-compatibility.html

Which states:

if your machine only has the .NET Framework version 4.0 installed, applications built against a previous .NET Framework won’t run implicitly. To enable them to run you need to add the following to the application config file:
?
1

…which is something I never knew. I must try this and see what happens.

Peter, while I do agree with you completely on the premise of it being “workaroundable,” it really depend on what kind of app you’re deploying. If I’m deploying “software,” there is no problem. I can easily include a downloader+installer in my setup utility.

But one of the main perks of .NET and a reason to use it over native C++ is that it makes it really easy to write fast and simple utilities (and I’m not calling them applications for a reason) to get things done. The kind of utilities people write and make available for free download for others in the form of 100KB executables that will more or less just run and do their thing, minimal fuss required. For *these*, requiring a .NET stub downloader is more of a pain.

However, in the recent Windows 8 builds, .NET 3.5 can be enabled from the control panel under the enabled/disabled Windows components. Makes me wonder how it can be quickly enabled programmatically with a small C/C++ preloader.

13

The “install from the web” feature will do the check and offer to install them automatically. Very nice for little utilities.

Peter
Osr

14

xxxxx@NeoSmart.net wrote:

http://neilblackburn.blogspot.com/2009/10/net-framework-40-backward-compatibility.html

Now THAT is excellent clarification. Thanks a lot for this link!

Interesting that .NET 1.1…3.5 can be treated as “implicitly portable”,
but 4.0 requires explicit “developer blessing”.

[.NET makes it easy to write useful 100KB utilities]
For *these*, requiring a .NET stub downloader is more of a pain.

Also end-users with small systems (netbooks) want one runtime covering
all versions, not n incarnations of (each) 300+MB .NET runtimes (plus
m-times the ‘lightweight’ KBxxxxxx updates for each one).

[Win8 .NET3.5 enable switch]

Why not make sure your little utility also works on .NET 4.0, and
advertising it to the 4.0 CLR with the mentioned attribute?
(The article sounded like it would still run on e.g. .NET 2.0, if no
more ‘modern’ function was needed.)

For me it was/is pretty horrid to download a 100kB utility, only then to
learn I have to go/fetch/install another 300+MB runtime (XP, Win7).