Talk:Universal Windows Platform apps

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

Computing 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. Microsoft High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to Microsoft 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.MicrosoftWikipedia:WikiProject MicrosoftTemplate:WikiProject MicrosoftMicrosoft articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. 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. Software: Computing Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software 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.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Archives

Archive 1

Should we keep the present name by

Hello, Hoang the Hoangest

"Official" is a taboo word in Wikipedia. We always go by

WP:COMMONNAME

.

By the way, sorry for accidentally removing {{Windows Phone}}. I put it back. I meant to remove {{Microsoft APIs}} only because the latter does not list this article. The only API discussed in this article is "Universal App platform". I am thinking about moving the Category:Windows APIs to the redirect instead.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 07:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Windows 10 search box refers to these as "Trusted Windows Store app". Metro-style was simply a

codename used in development. ViperSnake151  Talk  20:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

@ViperSnake151: Do you have a purpose from repeating Dogmaticeclectic's sentence from three years ago?

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 08:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft is also officially using the term "Universal Windows Platform" (UWP) ViperSnake151  Talk  01:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ViperSnake151: Yes, and the article mentions both "Universal Windows Platform" and "UWP". What is your point?

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 17:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Codename Lisa How come you can never add articles to templates, with Sunrise Calendar you removed the {{Microsoft}} template because it wasn't mentioned despite being an acquisition, the easier thing at the time to me would be adding the article to the template as opposed to removing the template from the article, later someone added Sunrise Calendar to the template and it had to be moved back into the article, seemed completely unnecessary and prior to adding it to the {{Windows Phone}} template this article wasn't mentioned either, it all just seems redundant. --Hoang the Hoangest (talk) 09:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I do add articles to templates. Also I do what is correct, not what is easy.

Microsoft has millions of software products. But you don't see any of them of {{Microsoft}}. That's because {{Microsoft}} is a company template only; it only list the top important software products that constitute 90%+ of the company's revenue. But Sunrise Calendar can be added to List of Microsoft software. Perhaps you'd like to do the honors?

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:25, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Left: Traditional desktop app; elaborate and crowded even without contents" reads as a violation of

Hello, Naypta

You should not mistake "neutral point of view" with "neutralized point of view". In neutral point of view, we describe something as is, no more and no less, without passing judgment on it. "Neutralized view" seeks to eliminate or replace words that may evoke strong senses.

The desktop app is showing 60 user interface gadgets plus two rulers and the chrome consisting of title bar, two scroll bars one system menu, four window control buttons and a thick border. Compared with the other app, which is showing only one UI gadget and one hairline border, yes, in all the fairness, the desktop app is crowded.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 21:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but this article reads like an opinionated PR piece that tries to shame other types of software. ViperSnake151  Talk  01:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't see how it seems opinionated and the content seems to be well sourced and verified, also any usage of Microsoft's terms is quoted to make sure that the reader understands that the editors don't take these weasel words too serious. --Hoang the Hoangest (talk) 09:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ViperSnake151: I asked for your feedback two years ago. Why didn't you say that back then? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:25, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So basically, because I apparently did not respond two years ago, all of my comments are invalid? ViperSnake151  Talk  17:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Um... First, you should actually comment. Which words? Where? and What objection?

Only after you make the comment I can tell whether it is valid or not. (Although, you have never made invalid comments.) Of course, if it is about something other than Naypta's issue, please kindly open another thread.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 17:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per

Hello, WikIan

Metro-style apps are not all universal apps, even though Microsoft wishes they were. And we already have a Universal Windows Platform article.

Also, I've told you several times, but it seems I need saying it again:

In Wikipedia, notability is not temporary

. Once something becomes notable, it stays so.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 16:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

WP:COMMONNAME that should be this article's title. I also never said to delete this article, and fully understand its existence/importance as well. However, universal apps (aside from UWP) is also very important, and now even more important than metro-style apps, so does it deserve its own article? WikIan -(talk) 21:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

"but they are "Windows apps" and per

WP:COMMONNAME

"

You need to read the WP:COMMONNAME's contents, not just its title! "Windows apps" is ambiguous and does not fit the bill for being the article title. "App" simply means "application" or "computer program"; I once showed 25 sources to that effect. There is nothing in "Windows app" that suggests it is referring to those (frankly) low-quality

Metro design language and Windows Runtime

. Same goes for "Modern apps". "Windows Store apps" is now Microsoft's official name, and I expect one day it will replace Metro-style app as the title, but now its ambiguous aspect has too much weight. (Windows Store also sells desktop apps.)

"So does it deserve its own article?"

Not everything that becomes trendy automatically merits its own article. If you do create an article for it, all you end up with is a

Metro-style apps and Universal Windows Platform

are enough.

"I also never said to delete this article [...]" Huh? I never said you did! But I can't help but noticing that you reading too much into what is written is the source of all the disputes between you and me. As an encyclopedia writer, one must be patient, assume very little and have means to achieve more than just one POV.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 21:31, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Codename Lisa: So, I'm withdrawing my stance here. However, I think that Universal Apps will become more and more prevalent and therefore require its own article someday. Thanks, WikIan -(talk) 09:21, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@WikIan: I have a question for you though: Can you give me an example of one thing that you can say in article titled "Universal Apps" but not in article titled "Universal Windows Platform"? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of universal apps, how they are cross platform. The design, layout, Microsoft design language 2, touch and mouse optimization, new developer options in the store, etc. WikIan -(talk) 17:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, basically, everything this article is already saying. —Codename Lisa (talk) 18:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be revised to be only about Windows Store apps for Windows 8.x. Windows Store apps have evolved so much in Windows 10 that the difference between metro style apps made for Windows 8 and Windows 10 are significant. In fact, they look as though they are made for completely different platforms. The Store apps designed for Windows 10 and its attribution should be described in the article on Universal Windows Platform. I suggest that the introductory article be written to describe that these apps are apps designed for Windows 8 to be distributed through the Windows Store.

The philosophy between these apps and Store apps in Windows 10 are also different enough for this article to be strictly about Store apps in Windows 8. Recently Phil Spencer, MS's Xbox Division head stated Microsoft's intension to open up Windows Store apps even more, in reference to criticisms on UWP versions of AAA games such as, Gears of War Ultimate Edition for Windows 10.

This article should NOT be updated to be about UWP apps in Windows 10. This is because the restrictions of Windows 8's versions of store apps played an IMPORTANT roll in the history of computing. These restrictions played a major role in the critical receptions of Windows 8 and the Windows Store's momentum.

Here are some issues with not limiting the scope of this article to just Windows 8 store apps:

• At the current state, the majority of the attributes described in this article about Windows Store apps DO NOT APPLY to Windows 10, including:
• This article states that these apps can only be installed from Windows Store, or side loaded through enterprise domains or through a Windows developer license. This is NOT TRUE in Windows 10. Windows 10 allows side loading of ANY Store apps with just a switch in the Settings app, just like Android. No developer license or online authentication is required. Any user can do it.
• Multitasking: Other than a single sentence describing the difference in Windows 10, this article talks about multitasking system in Windows 8.
• The entire section of the "look and feel" of these apps are based on Windows 8's design guidelines, including App bars, Charms, horizontal scrolling, etc. These designs specs no longer apply to store apps designed for Windows 10. --NazmusLabs (A small part of a bigger movement to better the world!) (talk) 21:02, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, NazmusLabs

First, you can install sideloaded apps in Windows 10 but they won't run until their licensing condition is met. Exactly like Windows 8. You are fooled by a simple UI in Settings app. Be my guest and try it!

Second, all those differences that you said are minutiae. Metro-style apps still have the same development process, installation style, life-cycle management, security model, API and design language that is radically different from Windows desktop apps. Users can't even touch their shortcuts.

Third, and most importantly, even if all you said was true,

WP:FACR

requires an article to be broad in scope and comprehensive.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 22:02, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response Codename Lisa. But I believe you are incorrect on the licensing part. This is a direct quote from MSDN article:

Quote:

There is a different approach for development for Windows 10 devices. A developer license is no longer required for each device that you want to use to develop, install or test your app. You just enable a device once for these tasks from the settings for the device. That's it. No more renewing your developer licenses every 30 or 90 days!

If you are still using a Windows 8.1 device to develop or test your apps with Microsoft Visual Studio 2013 or Microsoft Visual Studio 2015, you still need to get a developer license or register your Windows Phone.

End Quote. Source: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/uwp/get-started/enable-your-device-for-development

I will go ahead and accept your other points. If we do stick to this article as the primary source of universal windows apps, in that case we need some significant updates. This article barely changed since the launch of Windows 10. I'll contribute where I can, God Willing. --NazmusLabs (A small part of a bigger movement to better the world!) (talk) 05:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@NazmusLabs: You are right. Things has changed since the last time I tested it. But the problem was not the developer license. The license to run sideloaded app extents (or did) to apps with certain signing requirements. Unsigned apps don't (or didn't) run. Actually, a TechNet source briefly alludes to it:

Here's what you'll need to have:

• Devices need to be unlocked for sideloading (unlock policy enabled)
• Certificate assigned to app
• Signed app package

Anyway, things might have changed. I keep an open mind. Let's help each other.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 08:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Let's not forget that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and actually loves historic info. — Codename Lisa (talk) 08:40, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Codename Lisa: Hi there. Just new updates to the signing information. Some new developments completely changed the rules. All this were announced at Build 2016. UWP can now be signed by ANY root certificate. It is no longer required to be signed by MS. It can be installed by simply double-clicking an APPX package. UWP apps can be installed from other app distribution platforms. Another big change is that UWP apps are NO LONGER called Windows Store apps. Windows 10 calls it "Windows App". If it is downloaded form the Windows Store, then it is called "Trusted Windows Store App". That is, from now on, Windows Store App is a term for only UWP apps that come from the Windows Store. Best, Nazmus. --NazmusLabs (A small part of a bigger movement to better the world!) (talk) 05:37, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@

common name

, with people and media using a host of ambiguous names that Wikipedia naming policy doesn't approve.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 12:27, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Us readers really need this aspect of the article to be clarified/improved! With regard to Windows 10, am I really not allowed to write my own "app" and install and run it on my own computer, without permission/involvement from MS? This is an extremely important "detail". It seems like a big step towards a future in which ordinary people have no real control of their own computers. (And it would be particularly ironic and malicious to use the name "universal" for such a locked and restricted category of software.)-71.174.176.65 (talk) 02:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of this article, IMO, reads like a laundry list of things some people don't like about the subject. This seems to violate

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 11:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

T/C|☮️|John15:12|🍂 17:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

By "people", I mean the authors of the Wikipedia article. If the article said things like, for example, "According to Author McAuthorness's editorial in The New York Times, a Windows app manager automatically terminates these apps independent of the user's wish.", then it would be presenting it as McAuthorness's subjective viewpoint, rather than as objective fact. —{{u|

T/C|☮️|John15:12|🍂 17:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 11:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

T/C|☮️|John15:12|🍂 18:19, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

I understand. Let's make it happen. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:NPOVN and realized no one else had responded, so figured I'd give my 2 cents FWIW. Goldenshimmer, I didn't interpret the sections you pointed out as having a negative tone. To me, they seemed to be in a "dispassionate" tone, but I do think the wording is a little awkward, so maybe that makes it easy for us to interpret it differently. IMO the bigger issue is the sparse sourcing. There are also some grammar issues that I'll try to fix up now. I do think it could use some tweaks and more sources. Goldenshimmer, do you have suggestions for better wording? —PermStrump(talk) 01:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi @Permstrump and Codename Lisa:. :) Sorry I took so long to get back to you about this. Thank you for considering my thoughts about the article! Here are my suggested changes:

• Nomenclature section: Just needs a source.
• Look and feel: The "no-chrome rule" is not described as a rule when it is introduced ("They have no UI chrome" vs. e.g. "They may not have UI chrome"); this is a bit confusing.
• Distribution and licensing: Needs sources for the 1st and 3d paragraphs. I would suggest the first paragraph be stated something like:

Traditional Windows apps can come from a variety of sources, such as

Windows Store (the Windows Store is only available in 120 countries, and requires an Internet connection and a Microsoft account

). Windows Store apps are published by Microsoft, and installation and maintenance are managed by the Windows Store Service. Windows Store apps are distributed under licensing terms specified by Microsoft, notably that purchased apps must be permitted to be used on multiple devices.

Let's address these in the same order that you added them:

• Nomenclature section: I added a citation to the effect the quoted phrases come directly from Windows 10. That's how we treat such trivia things, e.g. the source for the name of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. The source for the name of Windows 10 is Windows 10.
• Look and feel: I think we should remove the "relaxed the no-chrome rule" part and Microsoft put the title bar feature back. It needs source, so here is one:

  Leonhart, Woody (8 April 2014). "What's new in Windows 8.1 Update".

  IDG

  .

• Distribution and licensing: I'll look for a source. But unfortunately, I have to reject your suggestion for the following reason:
  • The first sentence of your paragraph does not summarize it. Existing article has this: "Traditionally, Windows was an open operating system."
  • You used
    weasel words
    "generally" and "notably".
  • You have written "Universal Windows platform" while the paragraph is talking about Windows 8 when UWP still didn't exist.
  • You should not mistake neutral point of view with neutralized point of view (or neutered point of view). A neutral point of view means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. A neutered point of view is one that adjusts the writing so it reads neither good nor bad but gray.
  • Wikipedia is not censored. You have misfiled the fact that Microsoft reserves itself the right to uninstall software from the user's computer. Please note that the article neither says this is good nor says it is bad. Just that Microsoft can.
• Multitasking: I will look for more sources as my time permits. But unfortunately, your suggestion has the following problems:
  • You have once again used a
    weasel word
    , "generally".
  • You have talked about UWP while that portion of the article is talking about Windows 8, where UWP didn't exist. (Only Metro-style apps.)
• In Windows 10 > Look and feel: Sure.
• Lifecycle: Your love for
  weasel words
  is astounding; I hope you never marry them! Joke aside, you are here to improve neutrality while weasel words do the exact opposite. And while we are at it, you certainly love removing info. In this case, you have removed the explanation as to why Metro-style apps can only be developed with Microsoft's own tools. Also, re-read my explanation about neutral vs. neutered point of view.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 09:55, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the helpful criticism and improvements to the article! I've gone through and revised my suggestion based on your input. How's it look?