[Info-vax] VSI licensing policy (again), was: Re: VSI has a new CEO

[Arne Vajhøj]

On 8/18/2021 8:45 PM, David Goodwin wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 18, 2021 at 8:32:37 PM UTC+12, Lawrence
> D’Oliveiro wrote:
>> On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 9:23:00 AM UTC+12, Michael S wrote:
>>> 
>>> According to my understanding, not many apps are readily
>>> available on WinArm in native form apart from Microsoft Office
>>> suite and Firefox.
>> On top of which, Microsoft’s x86 emulator only handles 32-bit code,
>> not AMD64. The only thing that makes that palatable is the fact
>> that much of Windows code never made the transition to 64-bit
>> anyway.
> 
> That's because for most applications unless you need to allocate more
> than 2GB of RAM there is little benefit in being 64bit - all it
> really does is increase memory consumption a bit and probably CPU
> cache misses as well.

Floating Point is also very different between 32 bit and 64 bit.

And virtual memory space does not only apply to RAM but can also
be mapped to a file.

But yes all 3 cases are probably exceptions.

>>> But in theory, most of in-house stuff nowadays is written in .Net
>>> ...
>> 
>> What, not Dotnet Core? What happened to Win64? Silverlight? WinRT?
>> UWP? How many versions of “Project Reunion” have there been?
>> 
>> I don’t think Windows developers can say with any certainty right
>> now which of Microsoft’s many platform APIs is the “core” one going
>> forward...
> 
> .net core is just a newer version of .net same as Java 7 is a newer
> version of Java. Microsoft has actually dropped the 'core' branding
> now - the most recent version is simply called .net 5.

.NET Core and .NET FX were two different .NET flavors.

.NET FX got discontinued and .NET Core 3 evolved into .NET 5.

.NET Core 3 to .NET 5 is a normal version upgrade like Java 6 to 7.

But .NET FX 4 to .NET 5 is a somewhat bigger upgrade - some things
are different and some features were dropped.

So some .NET FX 4 users may need to stay or rewrite.

But not the typical .NET winform or WPF GUI.

> It would sure be nice if Microsoft would just pick a UI toolkit and
> stick with it but Microsoft is by no means alone when it comes to
> this problem.

Java went: AWT -> Swing -> JavaFX.

Arne