This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing: Software Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Mid-importance). Microsoft Windows: Computing High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft Windows, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microsoft Windows on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Microsoft WindowsWikipedia:WikiProject Microsoft WindowsTemplate:WikiProject Microsoft WindowsMicrosoft Windows articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

I'm trying to insert the text "Since UWP was introduced in Windows 10, UWP apps will not run on Mac's, Linux Desktop or Windows 8 and below. Microsoft have not indicated any intention to develop emulator/compatibility software for these platforms." to the start of the Compatibility section.

As a developer, my most pressing question about UWP is "will my company be able to use it to sell software to our existing customers?". The text "first introduced in Windows 10" doesn't really answer that question at all - if emulator software existed then UWP apps _would_ run on these other platforms. Or it is conceivable that a software upgrade to Windows 7 & 8, _subsequent_ to Windows 10, would introduce the necessary components. Furthermore I think some redundancy is called for here, given that the section is titled "Compatibility" and the platform name is titled "_Universal_ Windows..." - the section on 'Compatibility' is where I would go straight to, to answer this question or clarify the meaning of "first introduced". Tcotco (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tcotco

First and most important: This page is community message board; if you want to write anything to it, please consider adding a proper title heading and adhering to its etiquette. (Please see WP:TALK.) If you want to say anything to me only, you can contact on my user talk page. But here, you talk to everyone.

Second, in Wikipedia, every claim that is challenged needs a source. You claim an emulator does not exist and these app don't work in Linux and Mac. Can I please see your source? A solution is to avoid saying things that you don't know and stick to things that you know, e.g., you don't know of any emulator, so you assume it does not exist. Don't! You don't know about Microsoft projects to bring Metro-style apps to iOS and Android, so you assume Microsoft has never even hinted. Again, don't! (Hint: You are wrong on both accounts. Project Islandwood and Astoria are mentioned in the article!)

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 17:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've read about Project Islandwood and Astoria and they are designed for running Android and iOS apps on Windows 10, not the reverse case of running Windows 10 UWP apps on other operating systems. So they don't suggest I'm wrong with my statement. If you initially misread my statement, can you suggest a wording which makes it clearer to both audiences: (a) developers trying to decide if it's worth creating UWP apps, and (b) end users trying to decide if it's worth upgrading to Windows 10?

Here are some references to support my claim. I can't find any authoritative announcement by Microsoft on this but based on these secondary sources and the fact Microsoft is not denying them, it seems safe to say that "Microsoft have not announced any intention...":

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/34059267/can-uwp-apps-be-ported-to-windows-7

http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/293722/how-can-i-target-both-windows-10-uwp-and-windows-phone-8-1-in-the-same-app

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/microsoft-universal-windows-app-in-windows-10-are-deeply-flawed-2015-8?r=US&IR=T

http://vowe.net/archives/015113.html

In my opinion, these are good enough to make the statement, and in the unlikely event the statement is nevertheless wrong, someone will quickly notice and correct this page.

Tcotco (talk) 04:26, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Tcotco

Let's start with this: "[...]they are designed for running Android and iOS apps on Windows 10, not the reverse case[...]". But you exactly asked for the reverse case; i.e. you hinted that you have existing Mac and Linux customers. So, when you write "UWP apps will not run on Mac's, Linux [...] Microsoft have not indicated any intention to develop emulator/compatibility software for these platforms", you are saying UWP does not work on Mac and Linux, and there is no cross-platform equivalent. Now you are changing it to UWP does not work on Mac and Linux and never will. In case of the former, you care for developing apps for existing customers and in case of the latter, you are an exclusive UWP developer and want to extend your market to Mac and Linux without learning anything other than UWP.

As for the sources that you gave, ignoring the WP:SPS issue, they have the negative assumption issue again: They don't say it does not exist; they just say what the article says: It is for Windows 10 and later. (I couldn't read the Business Insider; I receive error 503.) This argument from absence is faulty.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 15:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Codename Lisa.

You're quite right, that the 2 projects you mentioned serve the opposite case to what I need in my personal circumstances and to what my proposed sentence addresses. Therefore they are irrelevant to this discussion, and so let's cease all discussion of Islandwood and Astoria forthwith.

I tried hard to understand your top paragraph but my brain must not be working properly today, I don't really get the distinction you're drawing. I'm a developer of apps with customers who have Windows 7, 8, 10; and a very small number of Mac's and Linux desktop, and we've made a decision to port our app from Win32 to something more modern. Should I devote man-years to developing an app in UWP, or should I choose a different platform? I just want to put something in the "Compatibility" section for people like me. Can you suggest some wording which makes it clear that UWP is not going to help me write apps which target all platforms? This is far from clear from the very brief existing paragraph.

My statement is that "Microsoft have not announced an intention to allow UWP apps to run in Windows 7 and 8. I'm not making an "argument from absence", I'm making a statement about an absence. It's a pretty low risk statement to make, right? I'm not saying backwards compatibility emulators won't be developed in future. If there had been such an announcement then a simple Google search would find it, a quick read of Microsoft's own pages on UWP would find it, and all those bloggers and journalists wouldn't be saying there's an absence of an announcement of an intention. Are you saying you'll only accept a press release from Microsoft saying they have ruled it out, or not begun planning for it?

I think it's fair enough that a section titled "Compatibility" inside an article titled "Universal Windows Platform" should explicitly (not just implicitly) state that these apps are not compatible with the majority of versions of Windows. Don't you?

The business insider URL works fine for me when I try it now. The site must have been down when you tried it.

Hope to hear from you soon.

203.29.159.134 (talk) 22:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I can now understand a lot of things that I didn't understand earlier. Good. So, if I have understood correctly so far, a good compromise could be to merge "Compatibility" (which addresses compatibility among Window family members) and "External portability" (which addresses compatibility between other operating systems) into one section, then clean up (by getting rid of the "Development" heading and promoting other headings one level up). Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I confirm the Business Insider link is now operational. —Codename Lisa (talk) 10:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Spencer hinted at this at a conference and now there will be more information coming at //build. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 14:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]