This is one of those things that MS has done to themselves by having always stressed that backwards compatibility IS so important in each new version
They’ve made it so people have NO incentive to update their software (which is bad for us all)
Now I’m not saying I like Apples “deprecate it if its over a week old” pace but there has to be some middle ground between MS’ “never deprecate anything” and Apple’s “deprecate anything thats a week old”
Its more likely that VB6 as a dev tool will die before the runtime support does
True. That might be the day I can cash a very large check for emergency development work. 
They tried to kill it in Windows 8, and as a result, many developers never upgraded and stayed content with Windows 7 
There is indeed a tremendous existing market for Win32 apps. Heck, even QuickBasic executables still work fine.
My concern is not that I won’t be able to sell Win32 apps. It is new users of Windows10, namely those who start with Windows 10 hardware, full touch support, Windows Store apps and little interest for legacy.
With some degree of luck, Win32 apps bottled in Project C containers (Centennial Bridge) will enable Win32 apps to go into the Windows Store, and to run on tablets and touch enabled PCs. But that is only half of what is needed to be relevant. Without radical redesign, a Win32 app will look almost as old fashion as a Dos QuickBasic app.
I have been in the process of touchifying and making a Xojo app conformant to the Modern UI for several month, and am still dealing with the need to emulate each and every aspect of what comes built in VS UWP apps. Heck, even calling system dialogs like the new print contract is not even possible from a Win32 app. So I end up with a bright and fresh looking Modern UI app, and an antique Windows 3.00 looking print setup window.
I know, not everybody wants to sell to these new end users, and a lot of Xojo developers cater to corporate users. But I still remember when Lotus 123 was the thing, and Excel was looked down upon as not professional. Sometimes technological evolution needs to be anticipated, not quickly dismissed…
IMHO, I think many developers overrate the specific looks of a UI. Many customers can’t tell the difference between Win3.11, Win95 or XP. Or maybe they can but gradients, 3D or flat look - they don’t care. All they care about is how much time/money is saved by my app. Me telling them about Win32 or Appx, they’re not listening.
That’s because: Windows. Also, I’d like to add to my argument: Windows Users.
Mac users care very much about aesthetics and ease of use. It’s why we spend buckets of money on desktop machines built with laptop parts.
No offense, but you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
All Windows 10 PCs sold today, would that be All-In-One desktop PC, laptops, convertible like the Surface, or downright tablets like the HP Stream Paul Lefebvre describes in the blog, are touch enabled. We are not talking antiquated bulky tower things with ugly mice and clunky keyboards. We are talking sleek hardware and apps that have more to do with smart phone UIs than age old Windows 3 controls. These users indeed have no idea what Window XP or Windows 7 are, because all they have ever been exposed to is akin to iOS, flat look and all. Try to imagine subjecting a smart phone user to the Mac 128 UI, and you get the idea. As it stands today, that is what Xojo produces as default. Sorry, but it is inadequate.
[quote=239911:@Tim Parnell]That’s because: Windows. Also, I’d like to add to my argument: Windows Users.
Mac users care very much about aesthetics and ease of use. It’s why we spend buckets of money on desktop machines built with laptop parts.[/quote]
Personal taste and emotional attachment for Jony Ives creations aside, modern Windows hardware is just as sexy. Most All-In-One desktop PCs bear more resemblance with the iMac than you realize. And the apps that go with Windows 10 have nothing to do with grandpa’s Windows XP programs…
As for laptops themselves, the Microsoft Surface Pro 4 has little to envy to both the iPad Pro and the latest MacBook.
My point is not to move you over to the dark side, it is just to say that users who have been born with that hardware won’t ever want to use Win32 looking apps. Neither would today’s Mac users want to go back to Mac OS 9.
I’m not dismissing it - just being realistic that until / unless MS pushes win32 off the cliff the impetus for a lot of updates / upgrades simply isn’t there.
Backwards compatibility is great - until, like MS, you’ve made it such a feature that you CAN’T even kill off tools that YOU stopped selling years ago and now have to figure out a way to make it so those legacy apps can keep running on your shiny new OS
They need to draw a line in the sand at some point but doing so will result in crushed sales for them as no one will want to upgrade if they can’t run their old software
Witness how often we get questions on here about “Hey a Xojo XXXX app doesn’t run on server 2003” (or XP)
There’s MS’s problem
They HAVE to have back compat or their sales tank much harder than Apples because their other divisions cannot make up the revenue from Windows license sales
Apple can give OS X away because - despite what Steve said years ago - Apple ISN’T a software vendor.
They’re still a hardware vendor that sells you a Mac (or an iPod or iPad or iPhone)
And “oh it comes with OS X that you can update for free ! How cool is that ?”
They sell you hardware & that subsidizes all the rest of the software investment
Fundamentally MS sells software only and making it hard to sell you a new version would kill them
So - back compat it is - with all the ugliness that brings along with every new version 
[quote=239924:@Norman Palardy]They’re still a hardware vendor that sells you a Mac (or an iPod or iPad or iPhone)
And “oh it comes with OS X that you can update for free ! How cool is that ?” :P[/quote]
The plot is even darker. Thanks to frequent OS updates, eventually you get to the point the machine will be refused the latest version, and that makes you feel like shit, until you buy a new machine. Psychological obsolescence 
Just that ■■■■ ugly OS (kidding)
Less so in the last bunch of years than you might guess
I have an 8 year old laptop I gave my daughter that is running 10.11
With an SSD in it it runs nearly as fast as my 3 year old one
It can run everything from 10.5 or 10.6 up to 10.11
[quote=239928:@Norman Palardy]Less so in the last bunch of years than you might guess
I have an 8 year old laptop I gave my daughter that is running 10.11
With an SSD in it it runs nearly as fast as my 3 year old one
It can run everything from 10.5 or 10.6 up to 10.11[/quote]
That happens usually with high end machines. Entry point and middle of the range will usually bump into the update barrier much earlier. More or less quickly. I had a 2007 white MacBook with Dual Core that was never able to go further than Lion.
So it got a 6 years up-to-date life.
I gave it to a nephew, but am sure he hates it as much as his older brother pair of pants…
Apple doesn’t make “cheap” hardware (the $149 laptops you often see)
Neighbour bought one & … well … piece of crap was the only way to describe it
Had to buy a new one less than a year later so the money was basically thrown away
Core 2 based machines (not the core 2 duos) were only 32 bit chips and Lion was the end of life for those
Everything since then is still supported
https://support.apple.com/kb/SP728?locale=en_US
Older HW thought you can install linux on & they make decent linux laptops
Or even Windows since it will run on old hardware - backwards compatibility and all that
Apple’s entry point is more like $1299 And there is nothing cheap about Apple anymore, since Amelio got kicked out 
Performas and the plethora of models was killing consumers trying to figure out what version to buy 
Too many choices is as bad as not enough.
The MacBook at $1299 is a nice little machine
The MacBook Pro 13" and iMac 21.5" are both $1099
Or the mini at $499
Apple doesn’t want to ship a “cheap” Mac - thats not the market they operate in
They’re happy to let Dell, Lenovo, HP fight it out for the low end and lose money doing it
And dont take this as “Apple is better”
Thats not the point at all
Apple’s stratgey is what it is
MS is what it is
They have pro’s and cons on both ends
I swear at Apple a lot too for deprecating things and not having a well fleshed out replacement (Quicktime anyone ?)
But because Apple is a “hardware company” and MS isn’t you cant directly compare them despite people trying to
They have to
Apple sells hardware & can afford to give away the OS
MS can’t
So MS has a strategy that encourages you to update but not lose your existing investment
Apple doesn’t
But that also means that Apple typically doesn’t sell inexpensive machines - heck even highly upgradeable machines
On that front the PC market beats Apple hands down
I’ve considered making a hackintosh from time to time to get an inexpensive “Mac Pro” - but thats never come to fruition as there are some compatibility issues
Pro’s and cons on both sides
I think I do. I started development in 1985 with Clipper (yes!). In many applications (VB/Delphi) I spend hours and hours to create a slick user interface, to mimic specific behavior, to get that tasty look. But it is all in vain as I develop for corporate customers. They do not care. The customer I work for today (a mortgage bank) , the critical systems in use are developed with Uniface or are even still 25*80 terminal screens. Nobody cares. Everybody’s happy. Windows indeed.
I do agree however that developing for Mac is a different beast altogether.
Your customers. Old Windows. What you say is true up until Windows 7. Probably true for Windows 8 upgrade. Not so sure it is true for people who bought their first machine with Windows 8 or 8.1 pre-installed.
Windows 10 native applications have nothing to do with the old world. Much more like Mac, the Web or iOS. I should have said “you don’t know what I am talking about”.
Windows 10 native apps are [personal biased opinion] ugly as hell. They lack visual elements that distinguish the app from its background and even make controls hard to understand. Still a kind of mixed state between a tablet app and a desktop app, a kind of My First Sony interface with elements for the visual impaired. I still hope MS comes with a redesign that makes those apps look like decent desktop applications. I studied User Interfaces as part of my MSc. I learned that every element of the UI must add to the user experience. Seems like the Win10 UI team never heard of such architectural principles. The Win10 design looks like design for the sake of design.
Ugly or not is a as usual a matter of personal taste.
On Mac, some hate the flat look and the iOS-like features, some loathed gradients.
Windows 10 native apps can look as stupid or as brilliant as the talent of their designer. When you wish MS makes apps look like a desktop app, in fact you wish developers to be constrained in reproducing old fashion standards. Just like you would require web sites to all look alike. Give creativity a chance…
One thing is for sure : the UI used for Win32 apps still uses the same basic controls which design has not changed since 1985. I find that way uglier !
Not true. Native Win32 controls adapt to the Windows style. In Windows 10 it looks like a Windows 10 application, in Windows 7 it looks like a Windows 7 application and so forth.
What matters here is that an application should have an useful and comfortable UI. If an user has a keyboard and a mouse then the UI should be optimised for that. A touch-optimized UI is just stupid in that situation. Apple got it right, iOS for iPhone/iPad and OSX for Macs. Apple knows how to make UI’s.