Skip to main content

Can Project Centennial apps run on Windows 10 Mobile (and other questions answered)

Windows Store
Windows Store (Image credit: Windows Central)

Earlier today, the first glimpses of Microsoft using their bridge called Centennial to repackage existing Classic Windows Apps was spotted in the Store. In short, Microsoft is taking Win32 apps like Paint and WordPad and "converting" them to the Universal Windows Platform (UWP) so that they can be listed in the Store.

Going through the comments, it is evident there is a lot of confusion around this topic including what is the point and whether these apps can run on Windows 10 Mobile. Here are some answers.

Does Centennial convert apps?

Project Centennial is one of three "bridges" for the Universal Windows Platform (the other two are Islandwood for iOS and Westminster for web apps). Their purpose is to help developers bring over the existing code to the new Windows Store for PC, Mobile, Xbox, and HoloLens.

Although we use the phrase "convert" in the context of Project Centennial and Classic Windows Apps (aka desktop apps), it is not entirely accurate.

Centennial mostly repackages Win32 apps into an AppX format for the store. It does not, however, rewrite code or change the app in the formal sense.

Why bridge an app using Centennial?

There are many reasons why a developer will want to use Centennial. For instance, that "old" desktop app can now take advantage of many modern UWP features, including:

  • Live Tiles
  • Notifications
  • Cleaner and safer app installer
  • Store metrics and monitoring
  • Automatic app updates for customers
  • App monetization
  • App discovery
  • Centralized customer reviews and ratings

As you can see, some of those benefit customers, while others help developers.

Additionally, developers can co-list their app on the Windows Store as well as other software repositories. Developers are not presented with an 'all or nothing' scenario when repackaging their app as they can distribute it via an AppX installation (instead of Exe) through their website or other repositories.

Hopefully, these reasons help those who "don't see the point" of Centennial or why a developer would be interested in the option.

Centennial is a foot in the UWP door for developers

Centennial is a foot in the UWP door for developers. It gets their old app to the Store. Later, if a developer would like to take it further, they can then migrate formal Win32 code to UWP ones to make it an actual, Universal Windows App (UWA).

Can Centennial apps run on Windows 10 Mobile?

The big question (and confusion) for many Windows 10 Mobile users is whether these apps can run on the phone.

It's complicated, but for the most part, the answer at this time is no.

The reason is that UWP supports a subset of Win32 APIs, but not all of them. There are still things that Win32 apps do that is not present in UWP. If the app makes calls to native Win32 DLLs that are not on the phone, the app won't work, and the overwhelming majority of Classic Windows Apps do make those calls.

UWP supports a subset of Win32 APIs, but not all of them

I suppose there could be exceptions to this, and we'll find out more as these apps being to transfer over to the Store, but the current consensus is don't bet on it.

Now, it is important to remember that this can and will likely change. It looks like Microsoft wants to replace all Win32 APIs with UWP ones, but you cannot just replace decades of developer tools and mindset in one year.

It is safe to assume that Microsoft wants all future apps to be part of the UWP framework written 100% with their developer tools for all devices. That is their goal. Bridges are a low cost and easy step in that direction for companies with existing software.

What about an Intel-based 'Surface' phone?

Could an Intel-powered phone run Centennial apps? In theory, yes, but there is no evidence that is what is going to happen. In fact, there is no proof that the Surface Phone is – or is supposed to be – Intel x86 based.

Apparently, Intel just dropped support for mobile with its discontinuation of its Atom lineup and it's not clear that Windows 10 Mobile will get the necessary Win32 APIs and DLLs to make it all work.

Instead, the easier solution right now is what HP is doing with the Elite x3: App Virtualization. This process lets you run Win32 apps through the cloud, which converts the functions into a UWP-like experience. While it is not as "pure" as running a real Win32 app or even a bridged one via Centennial, it is much easier to implement without inventing to new technologies.

The real takeaway is no one in the media yet knows what the phone Panos and the Surface team is developing is supposed to do or feature when it comes to Win32 apps. It's premature to come to any conclusions right regardless of what headlines may claim.

The bottom line

The takeaway here is the Centennial and even Islandwood (for iOS ports) are not meant to replace native UWP development. What they do, however, is let developers bring their apps to the Windows Store with man UWP features in exchange for very little work.

The idea, at least for immediate purposes, is to grow the store and get developers familiar with UWP. Later, they can then finish the job, so to speak by making their software an actual Universal Windows App (UWA) that can run across all devices including mobile. These bridges are like a trial run but with lots of immediate benefits. It's also easier for companies to get on board with Windows 10 without rewriting apps completely from the get go.

The idea is to grow the store

Windows 10, UWP/UWA, the Store and getting developers on board is a gradual process that will take a few years to be completed. However, it is important to remember that there is no magic bullet here. It is only through the combination of UWP, Bridges, and increased adoption of Windows 10 that will grow the app store.

Daniel Rubino
Daniel Rubino

Daniel Rubino is the Executive Editor of Windows Central, head reviewer, podcast co-host, and analyst. He has been covering Microsoft here since 2007, back when this site was called WMExperts (and later Windows Phone Central). His interests include Windows, Microsoft Surface, laptops, next-gen computing, and arguing with people on the internet.

165 Comments
  • Aww...I was expecting the paint app on mobile or many of the app like this coming from win32
  • Paint could happen, but for others there will be just the PC version for now. As Dan said, if the app is downloaded and the monetization is good, the dev could decide to rewrite the app to make it universal and take advantage of all the W10 users, not just the PC ones
  • Why dosen't MS offer a service to Devs where THEY will rewrite all their apps for them free of charge? If they had a decent free service offering free porting where MS does all the work, the Store would go ballistic in no time. Even die hard MS haters will let MS do the work if its free. 12 months free service or something like that, what a way to grow your business exponentionally for little cost, all apps rewritten for free including mobile. Boom.
  • There are probably many reasons. A couple of these would be that MS would have to offer some guarantee that they would perfectly convert the app with no problems. Another reason this might not go is that many developers would not want a third party to work on their code.
  • There's this app called Fresh Paint... It's great!! http://www.windowsphone.com/s?appid=ab89f9f8-f78b-4fa0-a244-c87d53c14319
  • Oooh that sounds so much fresher than mspaint! Sounds like an upgrade! Go w10! Go UWP! Go centennial!
  • It's an entirely different type of program. Fresh Paint is a virtual canvas that simulates oil paints, and a few other tools. There is no copy/paste or anything like that.... Just a canvas, oil paints, crayons and pens.
  • sorry let me take away the sarcasm. the fact that mspaint is not available is a perfect example of the fact that microsoft doesn't trust it's own tools. it shows that if you want to go from desktop programs to uwp apps, you're going to have to settle for crappy alternative (or no alternatives) with less functionality. it's (yet another) demonstration that uwp is doa, centennial will be gone in 6 months, and people are already waiting for w11.
  • Running these virtually is actually pretty awesome and the best case for this so far, the only setback to this is access...they would have to host these in the cloud (someone, somewhere) in order to get them to use. Imagine if we could stream apps tho =p Ugh, I'm at work...so boring lol =p
    Windows 10 RULZZ yer FACE!!!
  • Lets see what the future holds....
  • I believe that the Windows store will eventually be the largest single software store in the world....
    And, that's not overly wishful, naive, or delusional, thinking.. I honestly believe it's true... I think it will be around 2020, but I believe it's gonna happen. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    ROJO > ARLINGTON, TX > LUMIA 1520 ≥ 950... WAITING FOR 6.2" SURFACE PHONE
  • If only 10% of those Win32 apps get transferred to UWA, it would be 1.6 million.  Adding to the existing or other apps being ported over from other bridges, it could easily become the largest app store.
  • If people actually read the articles then maybe the same questions would stopped being asked, smh.
  • So why can't MS use a non intel chip in Surface Phone to handle the win32 desktop apps?
  • Win32 mean x86. That limits processor choices to AMD and Intel, neither of which has a good mobile solution.
  • There's also x86 processors from VIA who specializes in embedded processors. Your average consumer and even many enthusiasts, probably don't remember or haven't heard of VIA.
  • have a few via powered thin clients in office...... the only thing they are good for is target practice!
  • Got a VIA audiocard. Prodigy HD2 :p Sent from an alien space ship with a Lumia 950
  • I had VIA chipset powered board. But processor was still Intel. Damn it had huge shared video memory... Wch any Intel chipset could offer at that time. I was 2004 origin board. Posted via Windows Central App for Windows 10/Android
  • VIA chipsets where the ones to get at one point in time.   I owned a Cyrix processor, but nothing after VIA bought them out.
  • I used to have a PC at home powered by a VIA nano CPU, but the motherboard went bad and now all I have that's powered by VIA is one of their pico-ITX boards which actually run very well.
  • A thought rather occurred to me, why can't MS design a mobile X86 chip, like Apple does. Withe the given resources, out would not be out of reach
  • It would be highly cost prohibitive and extremely difficult to do.  Apple has been in the hardware game for a long time and can tailor their software as they choose because it only runs on their own hardware.  Microsoft only recently started making their own devices and has only created its products out of other companies' components (i.e. Surfaces use Intel, Lumias use Qualcomm) and need to worry about maintaining compatibility with other OEM's hardware when they update Windows. 
  • Apple do not make their own parts. They buy from Samsung, LG etc.
  • I was thinking the same exact thing.
  • I don't think the surface phone will have an x86 chip anyway. Surface is Microsofts Premium "mobile" harware line. It's just gonna be a really nice phone. Potentially, maybe something so you can run apps if you have a W10 device to act as a server but I highly doubt we will see a mainstream phone with an x86 chip in it for at least a few more years, and even that is pushing it.
  • Wait, so do you think the SP3 was just "a really nice tablet"? Or that the (failing) surface book is just "a really nice laptop"? Because that would be pretty conclusive evidence that you just don't understand what the surface brand is.
  • Failing surface book ????
  • well, it launched with probably the most issues of any laptop in history, sales are not good, and reviews are even worse. what's successful about it?
  • Actually, a lot of the issues were software/driver related which affected other devices as well.  From my understanding most have been corrected.
  • ok... but i don't get it.. are you implying that means it's not a failing product? because... well... it's still failing
  • If MS added full Azure hosted remote desktop to the mix (not just app-level virtualization) -- hell even bundle it for 6-12 months -- it would make Continuum a helluva lot more usable.
  • Yes just rebranding and some business features added, its targeting companies not consumers after all. So things like best of class camera are unlikely. Still don't see much chances of success due app gap growing faster and faster due tanking market share of W10M. Need for carrying one phone for some business apps and another for everything else won't be easy to sell.
  • Nevermind the Windows 10 market share??
  • Can this piece be the thing that puts the 'Surface Phone w/ Intel x86 chip' to bed, finally?   HP themselves said, when they unwrapped their X3 device, that the tech was years and years away from happening.  
  • Another possibility is that an x86 phone WAS planned, and that Intel's departure from mobile ruined those plans. It could be that the Lumia 950 fire sale that coincided closely with Intel's announcement was Microsoft throwing in the towel on Windows Mobile after Intel borked the device roadmap.
  • Possibly. The new Intel, like everyone else, is now all about servers/enterprise and the Cloud.    That's a pretty crowded field these days.  http://recode.net/2016/05/02/intel-10-billion-on-mobile-before-giving-up/  Interesting read, about Intel throwing in the towel on mobile chips.
  • Cloud is the go to for any enterprise businesses, for a couple of reasons. The first being that it is cheaper to pay monthly to have someone else maintain servers and facilities to maintain them. Secondly, its easier to retrieve vital information in the event of physical damages to businesses (natural and manmade disasters) and thirdly, it allows many enterprises to be able to access information on the go, as opposed to having information stored on site that would likely require you to be directly connected to their network. I'm sure there are probably work around, but the cost to maintain is something many businesses may be trying to avoid.
  • Wouldn't it work better for MS to then also sell an Azure product to the corporate world running a virtualization app, double dipping instead of using an x86 phone? Seems a better result for them?
  • "Another possibility is that an x86 phone WAS planned, and that Intel's departure from mobile ruined those plans."
    No evidence for that. The Surface news I reported last week was very new. I am confident that Microsoft did not learn about Atom via a website, but knew shortly after the decision was made by Intel.
  • What if they have something different coming up with the Surface Phone (a new cpu from intel)?
  • That doesn't at all match up with Terry Myerson's confirmation last week that they are still committed to making Windows Mobile work on ARM.
  • Yeah, more likely it just confirms that the x86 Surface Phone speculation was always just unfounded rumors and never really existed (not to mention that the vast majority of classic Win32 apps would be virtually unusable on a phone anyway since they are not at all designed for touch on a tiny screen).
  • The whole win32 apps on a phone thing has never been much about using it with touch but about using them while in continuum mode
  • Unfortunately there even some people oddly wishing you can use those 'desktop' apps on a phone screen. smh But yeah, this "Surface" phone doesn't need to have x86-64 SoC or native Win32 apps even though it sounds great on concept. It just needs to be great as a smartphone and just need well though aggressive marketing. In the end, it's how good the W10M will be and how mature the OS to reconsidered by people. Continuum for example just need an better UX and desktop-like environment enough to be PC-like. Better Universal Apps that are almost as powerful as desktop apps, and lastly a device that actually attracts consumers and reviewers alike. Sent from Turing Machine
  • The Surface Phone needs to not have the UI from Windows Phone. It has never been successful and never will be. Until Microsoft changes the UI, they will never gain any traction in mobile. I don't know how they can release the same basic product as WP7 an expect people to suddenly want it. Without a new UI, it will fail. Posted via the Windows Central App for Android
  • Only thing it has in common are live tiles, use small tile plus transparent tile and you have an android ui. By thinking that the UI is the problem you are completely off the mark.
  • When someone picks it up in the shop the interface screams Windows 8 and is no different than Windows Phone 7. Historically, they are not going to get much past that point. The interface is a turn off. Why Microsoft continues with it when it has failed every time they have used it. It single handedly sunk Windows 8. Microsoft needs to abandon it. Posted via the Windows Central App for Android
  • Well Windows 10 do still have Live Tiles screaming when you open the Start menu. The UI isn't really much a problem here, most people don't even know what the heck Lumia is or even know that there is such thing as Windows Phone. It just unfortunate that the "internet" blown it out of proportion on what's supposed to be a small issue. Almost every people I know didn't even care about the Live Tiles on my phone and they actually just able to navigate with. The Windows 8 issue was because they find the UI meant for touch when the laptop or desktop doesn't have a touch screen, not because the UI is totally bad for them. Heck there are people even find Windows 8 quite to use as a tablet, this will no different on phone which was originally came from. The major thing why people cant choose to get Windows phones because of the app gap, if not for that then UI wont be that much issue. Also as long as there are nice flagships frequently representing Windows phones, which also a problem as there are very few choices to non-existent on most areas. There alot of problem about this platform, but the UI isn't really one of them. Sent from Turing Machine
  • Tiles are minimal on Windows 10, they certainly aren't central to the UI. You don't have to use them at all and I would bet that most people don't. The start menu has the all apps option as well as the other things people were used to. Microsoft stopped making Flagships because nobody bought them. The only phones they could sell were the cheapest phones they could make, and even then sales were not that great. Because nobody was interested in the phones, developers didn't bother making apps for the platform. The app gap is a sympton of a lack sales, not the cause. Android and iOS didn't have apps either, but people liked the phones and bought them. Android certainly wasn't strong in this area when Windows Phone 7 was launched and Android also had some performance issues. People still chose Android over WP. If they like the UI then they would have bought the phones. Obviously they didn't. The only thing all these Microsoft failures have in common in the Tile UI. Not a single product with the Tile interface has been successful. From Zune to Windows 8 to Windows 10 Mobile, it has been complete failure after failure. The UI just isn't good and Microsoft hasn't done anything to make it better.
  • No
  • an x86 phone never was planned, and neither was a surface phone, and they never will be. the hardware comparison between phones and pcs will never converge. the devices are too different. you'll never be able to replace a minivan with a motorcycle. a lumia 960 has always been planned, and it still is. the lack of a surface phone doesn't mean microsoft is giving up, it just means they understand what the surface brand is, and you don't. even on here, they've started backpeddaling on the claims of a surface phone. now you'll see them call it a "surface" phone, or a "surface team" phone, or a panos phone. give it a few months and you'll just see silly codenames like cityman and talkman (long after the actual phone names have been confirmed btw). but it's going to be the 960.
  • @thehangover  I wouldn't say that phone and pcs will never converge.  The technology is just not there yet.  But in the future?  Absolutely! When Android tablets and Ipads were first introduced, did you think we'd have full functioning x64 tablets?
  • definitely never, and technology is hurting you, not helping you technology is driving the two apart, not together. pcs need to get more powerful. 10 years ago nobody knew what a photoshop was. there was no such thing as a youtube star. a university student just needed a laptop that ran word, now they need one that runs photoshop. graphic design is a big part of every business in every industry. so is social media, which keeps trending towards video, which requires video editing. technology makes pcs more powerful, and that keeps them big and heavy. phones need to get thinner and lighter. they need bigger screens with smaller batteries that last longer. technology makes phones thin and light, and that keeps them slow. the technology drives them apart, not together. we still don't have x64 android and ipad tablets. or a windows rt tablet. surface isn't really a tablet, it's a 2-in-1. it's a laptop without a detachable keyboard. a major differentiator of "tablets" is that they don't use the same components or run the same os as a laptop. surface broke the barrier by using laptop components. it didn't rely on advancing technology, it used existing technology. are you seriously contemplating a day where the same cpu that goes into a premium desktop (or even laptop) pc is also going to fit into your sub-100g smartphone?
  • And all you're doing is making assumptions.  Until Microsoft or Intel comes out and confirms either way, there's no telling what was in the works.
  • I take issue with this article. The code isn't recompiled in Centennial, the ported Win32 apps are compiled with x86 compilers.  Of course you're not going to be able and it has nothing to do with what WIn32 APIs are or aren't in the mobile platform. The same is true with Mac System 9 -> OSX, which is why they created Rosetta. If Win32 applications could compile to IL and let the store use an architecture specific compiler to generate a native binary for the device, then we could see Win32 (centennial) apps on Mobile.   
  • Well, actually .NET Core is going anywhere, including Linux. But it is lacking a GUI library. Truly universal apps.
  • "If Win32 applications could compile to IL" - dude, that's ridiculous.  It's categorically impossible.  And it has a *lot* to do with Win32 API's not being present in the UWP platform.
  • One big reason why developers may not get on with Centennial is that they'll have to start sharing the profits of their work with Microsoft.
    I don't see why any developer would be willing to do that when they already have a monetization scheme built by themselves. Posted via the Windows Central App for Android
  • "I don't see why any developer would be willing to do that when they already have a monetization scheme built by themselves."
    A Store built into every Windows 10 PC has much higher visibility than making a potential customer go to the web and try to "discover" an app they are looking for. Go to the web, type in "video player for Windows" and go through all the spammy results verus just searching in the store, where you can also read reviews. By this same reason, it's also safer for the customer who want be duped into those shady download sites and installing malware on their computers. Finally, you leave the part out about how it is optional to put your app in the Store (where there is revenue sharing)! You can use Centennial and not publish your app, instead, you just put your AppX on your website, etc. and still get the benefits of UWP. Did I not make that clear? I thought I had, sorry.
  • Only that you will see fake apps instead of spammy apps.
  • Is that a problem anymore? I just typed 'Whatsapp' on the store and not a single clone came up. I typed Clash of Clans and not one fake app. I think you're using a 2015 argument in 2016 and have not actually checked the Store recently.
  • I can't find them. I am looking everywhere but I don't see them on Windows 7 Ultimate. Posted via the Windows Central App for Android
  • Agree expecially for google that drive your search where they want, so that a lot of good apps are allmost impossible to find via a web search
  • Sure, convenience. For the consumer it sure is more convenient. And well, the store has visibility IF you open it. Which many people don't. And that's another factor. These "app stores" are associated with mobile. More than once I've heard people say that they didn't want an app from the store, they wanted a real programme. Like it or not, there's a mindset that immediately associates apps stores with mobile. As for the Store being optional, yes, I did understand it. But now explain to me WHY would a developer bother to convert their programme, which runs just fine, into a Windows app just to have it distributed via AppX instead of .exe? Not only consumers are already familiar with .exe files (something they aren't with AppX files) the developer would have wasted time and money for no reason whatsoever, just for the sake of having a "sideloadable" app. Sorry, but I just don't see the financial benefit in any of the options. Be it turning it into a Windows Store app or a sideloadable Windows app, developers will be losing money both ways in regards to what they have now.   (I won't go into the piracy/fake app argument because that's pretty pointless I think. Windows programmes are being pirates and fakes for decades now anyway.)
  • "And well, the store has visibility IF you open it. Which many people don't."
    You got data to back that up or are just guessing? That's a rhetorical question.
    "Not only consumers are already familiar with .exe files (something they aren't with AppX files) "
    You know what customers know? App Stores due to the phone model. Not foreign at all.
    "As for the Store being optional, yes, I did understand it. But now explain to me WHY would a developer bother to convert their programme, which runs just fine, into a Windows app just to have it distributed via AppX instead of .exe?"
    I put the reasons in nice, clean bullet points. You did not counter any of them.
  • The financial benefit of a percentage of a sale versus no sale. We get it, you don't like change, but to keep whining about the store is like holding back the tide with your bare hands. You whining about it (and mostly not comprehending the benefit) isn't going to change anything. One day it will be store only for all apps, for security. A self updating device with secure apps. Only way to win against the Internet scum, even if publishers lose a percentage. It's the future. 
  • "Which many people don't" Interesting, because there was an article here a few weeks/months ago giving exact numbers for how many apps were downloaded, number of people using the store, etc. And if I remember correctly, it was you who went off on a fantasy trip trying to tell us that Microsoft was lying to us, Win10 was a failure and no body was using the store, and so on and so on.You got exact numbers, but you didn't want to believe it. Now you are claiming you have no idea what is happening because nobody knows how many user visits there are. Just because you refuse to believe numbers (numbers which, if misstated could be construed as fraud by the SEC) and now want to pretend it never happened does not mean much. "there's a mindset ..." In your mind. There is the Apple OSX store. People buy apps from it. Apple likes to tell us that it is popular. OSX is not mobile. Your favorite, ChromeOS has a store, and is on laptops and desktops. So you are saying that Apple and Google are creating stores that nobody will use? "explain to me WHY would a developer bother to convert their programme" I have, but you refuse to listen. Why should I repeat something over and over and over if you refuse to listen? Oh, I know why, because it doesn't fit into your fantasy world. "Not only consumers are already familiar with .exe files" No, they are not. They are familiar with little icons that they see on the Start menu, on the bottom of their monitor in the task bar, or on their desktop. They don't care if it is an exe, a com, a bin, a bat, a cmd, or whatever. If there is anything that they are fimilar with, maybe msi which they do something called "install" to get that icon on their screen. And guess what? In this case they don't even need to worry about msi files because it goes from store to icon on the start menu with the click of a button. No inserting disks, no downloading files from sites they are unssure of, no unblocking files they downloaded from the internet. None of that. Open store. Search. Click button. "Sorry, but I just don't see the financial benefit " You just don't see. Period. Your hate has blinded you. You don't want to learn something new. You don't care about the developer. You don't care about the user. You are here simply to whine, bitc* and complain to try make yourself think you are doing your part in this "war" to try to drive people away from Microsoft.
  • You tell him. Let me modify that para about common people and .exe
    When that option in folder options called "hide know file extensions"is ticked, there are NO exes, no bins, no appxs. It's just a file with whatever the explorer shows their icons as. They'll double click it it if it's named "Setup", "Installer", or even the app name with an version number following, like on VLC for example. People really wouldn't mind, or even know if it's an exe or an appx. If the app gets installed afterwards, they're happy. I'm not trying to dumb them down, it's just that most people aren't geeks and doesn't want to spent too much time on PC for things other than what matters to them.
  • You tell him. Let me modify that para about common people and .exe
    When that option in folder options called "hide know file extensions"is ticked, there are NO exes, no bins, no appxs. It's just a file with whatever the explorer shows their icons as. They'll double click it it if it's named "Setup", "Installer", or even the app name with an version number following, like on VLC for example. People really wouldn't mind, or even know if it's an exe or an appx. If the app gets installed afterwards, they're happy. I'm not trying to dumb them down, it's just that most people aren't geeks and doesn't want to spent too much time on PC for things other than what matters to them.
  • I know you really don't care, since you are just here to troll. But I ran the numbers for you - Amazon m4.large Windows with SQL Standard = $0.921/hour = $8067.96/year
    Magento e-commerce web site (no hosting, only software) = $18,000/year
    A anti-piracy software package we use in my real job - $12,000/year
    Web site development - $120/hour
    Accountant for handling taxes - $200/hour For a grand total of $38387.96 per year just to sell my software. None of that money goes to me, just into running that site. Now let's not forget taxes, which in my location is 10%. The app I have on the store right now is $4.99. This means I need to sell 8531 copies of my software before I get any money from my work. And if I don't sell 8531 copies, then I lost that money. By using the store, I have no costs, nothing lost to piracy, no taxes to manage, no web sites that I need to maintain. If the app sells, I get money. If it doesn't then all I lose is time. That is the economics of it. But you will ignore it, and tomorrow you will go on another rant about how the store doesn't make sense, and concoct another FUD story to scare people away.
  • Bogus. I have a dedicated Win2012R2 server at SoftLayer.com for $250/month for distributing my Win32 programs, support files, and support forum with MySQL (total of $3000/year). I use SoftwarePassport for protection (even though they're now defunct) for one-time purchase of $299. Fastspring.com is my reseller and they take ~6%. BTW, sales tax is ADDED to the purchase price and handled by the reseller, so including that in your expenses is bogus. Edit: the server I have is over-powered for what I need (by 2X) but I'm paranoid and wanted a RAID1 setup to survive a drive failure.
  • your economics don't scale. it might not make sense for a business with 40k annual income, but that's a really crummy business. what are you selling, lemonade? if you're a big business with, say 100 times those sales, you don't need 100 more websites or 100 more accountants or 100 more anti-piracy packages or 100 more merchants. those costs will barely increase, and those are almost all of your costs right now. your own economics will show that for a *successful* business, the store's percentage is way more expensive than running your own business.
  • That is it how the industry works. And this misunderstanding is the reason for Apple's lack of inroads in the business sector.
  • I disagree. Google and Bing function actually as a store for w32 apps. You search for a video player and you find VLC and others. All people can find the top apps easily this way. They whole store thing is invested by Apple to take a piece of the cake of every developer. And Microsoft has to go along with it.... Sent from an alien space ship with a Lumia 950
  • My Win32 programs are sold by a reseller, Fastspring, and they only take ~6% of sales (they handle all the tax issues, key distribution, etc.). Plus, my Win32 programs work on Win7 through Win10. A Centennial version would only work on Win10. That's the wall that MSFT keeps banging its head against. It's insanity.
  • "A Centennial version would only work on Win10. "
    You do realize that this is not a wave/particle duality. You can have both and exe and appx version of your app exist in the world for customers. Difference is your AppX can get new features.
  • Dont't feed the lame troll - just ban her!  
  • If I remember correctly, MS said during Build that Appx UWP packages will not be restricted to the Windows Store only. The developer can deploy it through other channels also. The only requirement is that they have to get the package signed by a trusted root cert. They even demoed an installation by just double clicking the Appx package.
  • See my answer to Daniel above.
  • Why?  It didn't make any sense.
  • See.. No one is forcing developers to use UWP. But let's say you are a developer and you have invested a lot of time and money developing a WPF application. Now you want to take advantage of some of the new features that UWP provides. For example, you may want to make your application more secure by using Windows Passport (Windows Hello). Now what is the most economic and logical solution? You obviously don't want to re-write your entire app using UWP, which will take a long time; not to mention you'll be doing this for a small percentage of people who are using Windows 10. You will try the most cost-effective solution: Code the authentication part (using Windows Passport APIs) in UWP and package it alongside your existing Win32 app (Win32 processes and UWP processes can communicate between each other) and deploy it through your preferred channel. You don't even have to use Project Centennial tools to package your app manually. MS is already working with InstallShield and WiX to integrate this functionality: the installers will generate an Appx and EXE at the same time. So you will still be catering to Windows 7 users, and at the same time providing new features to Win10 users. And remember, UWP APIs are not a 'subset' of Win32 APIs. It's more like a Venn Diagram of overlapping UWP and Win32 APIs. There are Win32 only APIs which you still cannot convert, there are UWP only APIs, and there are feature sets which have APIs in both Win32 and UWP.
  • The article clearly says that no developer is obligated to distribute the app in appx format through the store. The developer can distribute the appx through their site or whatever old way they were using before. They will not need to pay Microsoft part of their profit.
  • One big reason why developers may not get on with Centennial is that they'll have to start sharing the profits of their work with Microsoft.
    Since when is buying software directly from the developers' website the usual route consumers take? Best Buy, Amazon, Steam, they all take a share of the revenue from software sales into their pockets.
  • Since when is buying software directly from the developers' website the usual route consumers take?    Since this isn't 2003 anymore? In case you haven't noticed, even the "programmes" you buy these days require you to actually download it from the web. Few come in disks anymore.
  • Smartphone Store models and things like Steam for gamers have changed all of that. The web is dying.
  • "The web is dying" This sounds like PC is dying, tablets is dying, smartphone is dying, etc. I hope you just meant traditional web distribution of apps. Traditional way of search apps on the web search is here to stay. Maybe not as going to be a popular way to get apps but likely will be still an option. Sent from Turing Machine
  • Heh, I assume/hope you mean only in terms of where people are buying software. The web is not dying - don't give Jason any ideas. :P
  • Do you realize that there's other types of software besides games? No? Ok! I would never imagine anyone trying to buy a downloadable piece of software through amazon. Why would anyone do that? Do you mean kindle books?
  • Once again you post this ignoring how your favorite, Google through Android, does the same exact thing. Apple also does it. The thing is, developers have a choice. If they want to use a store, go for it. If developers don't want to distribute through a store then they are not forced to (I know, novel concept). To remind you once again, I tried selling software on my own. A one person shop that wrote software after work hours. Trying to sell it was a total and complete mess dealing with taxes, piracy protection, advertising, etc. I ended up not selling it because it was too much to deal with. A store, though, allows you to not need to worry about that and focus on the code. Big name companies do this all the time, Microsoft is the publisher in this case selling my software on my behalf. But we know how it works with you, take some concept you know nothing about and use it as another attempt to attack Microsoft. And once again you have failed at it.
  • Microsoft ins't interested in basement-developers like you who do some crappy app on their free time. Their aim is to bring big software developers into the UWP platform. Companies that matter to whom "taxes, piracy protection, advertising, etc" isn't faced as some annoying "adult" thing but as part of how business work.   But I know how it is with the likes of you. You think you're amazing developers and enterpreneurs just because you know how to write a couple of lines of code and decide that any logical economical argument is just an attack on anything.   Do yourself a favour...never try to start any business on your own. Not unless you want to be sleeping under the bridge a month later.
  • "basement-developers" If you knew the software I did write, what I do write now, and the software development titles I held/hold, then that would be the last phrase to describe me. And your little attempt at a personal attack, but once again miserably failing, only shows perfectly what I was talking about. I am a software developer. Not a tax specialist. Not a marketer. A software developer that doesn't know how to properly do tax withholdings, to set up a marketing campaign. But using the store takes care of that for me. As for Microsoft doesn't care about devlopers like me, Apple does, Google does, and yes, Microsoft does too. See, Apple can brag about those high app store app counts because of small independant developers - like me. Same for Google. Same for Microsoft. And see, what Microsoft/Google/Apple is doing is called publishing. They are software publishers, this is what publishers do, they take the burden of taxes, marketing and distribution off of the developers, and then take their cut. Ever play a game on a PlayStation, Xbox or Nintendo? Most of the games on those consoles are published by Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo. And those three companies care very much about what small developers do - it keeps the consoles going.  
  • The above post by DJBS is grossly unfounded, and to call someone a basement devoloper, in any context, is just down right rude. Unless you have details of what is developed, and how much time / effort goes into it, you really don't have the grounds to abuse other members in this way. Having read your posts recently, you appear to be coming more and more argumentative and straying near the limits of what is acceptable on these boards. Name calling and personal insults are for the school playground. We are all entitled to our opinions, but please don't start using terms that could cause offense to other users.
  • This is why developers don't put apps on play store but sell their packages on their website right? /s
  • They put their apps on the Play Store because of how huge it is, and because of how many people use it.
  • Ummmmmm, he was being sarcastic.
  • It all depends on what customers demand.  Businesses hate Win32 apps because of the distribution model.  But if they can have their own curated App Store where all applications available to their users can be found, they might like that, and Centennial gets Win32 apps into that delivery model.  It's very intriguing, but I can assure you I'm not going to be the first person to adopt it.  It could easily be 2 years before we see enterprises move in this direction, if it ever happens. 
  • Daniel what happened with the "ask Dan" videos? Are you slacking? ;) Posted from Windows Central for Windows 10
  • They're done for now. Not coming back anytime soon.
  • Well that sucks!
  • I'll miss them too T.T I blame HoloLens Posted from Windows Central for Windows 10
  • Sorry to hear that.
  • I was going to be sad, but now I think I expected more.. Bridges are here for help. They're not the solution.
    Mobile platform still has questions about x86 apps architecture and usage. (e.g, should they only be used during continuum? If yes, what about apps like Notepad then?) I think, if intel won't come up with a good mobile solution, MS and developers will need to do a lot of work to catch up to our future expectations. Sent from a black hole.
  • My problem with packaged apps is it will no longer be possible to edit the settings via the program's configuration file or editing the registry. There are many programs where you are forced to access the registry to change a setting in the program.
  • Which you're not supposed to do, technically. This is precisely why MS wants developers to use UWP, so that you don't go tinkering with the registry. It is the responsibility of the dev to build the application in a way that you only have access to the settings that you're supposed to have.
  • Even Microsoft tells users to change the program settings thru the registry, for example increasing the default attachment size from the default 20 MB in Outlook for desktop, which is done through the registry.
  • MS admitted during Build that it was a mistake giving devs the freedom to use the registry for their own use.
  • It looks like Microsoft wants to replace all Win32 APIs with UWP ones, but you cannot just replace decades of developer tools and mindset in one year.
    It has been FIVE years since WinRT came out. Zip dev interest. The article gives the impression that devs simply "migrate" from Win32 to WinRT. That's not the case. It would require almost a complete rewrite of any decent sized program. None of your USER and GDI code will migrate. Even basics like fopen() in C won't work except in your app's playground (this issue vastly complicates using decades worth of standard C/C++ library functionality). MSFT apparently thought that WinRT was going to be so compelling that ISVs would simply put up with the hassles of converting to WinRT ... it was a fatal error -- a business bluescreen. I'm porting my C++ Win32 core code to iOS and Android (and finding that XCode is surprisingly friendly to mixing Swift and C++). If I'm going through all that hassle I want a chance to actually sell my programs to recoup the development cost!
  • Nearly 1 WinRT million apps on the store, yep, that is "zip dev interest." This article does no such thing. They clearly lay out that it is not a cross-compilation with ARM chips, but is specifically x86 based. As for the rest of your diatribe, it is clear you do not understand what this is, how it works, how WinRT works, and so on. Go educate yourself then return and we can have a serious discussion.
  • 1 million garbage apps, most of which are abandoned Windows 8 apps that havent been touched since 2013.
  • "The article gives the impression that devs simply "migrate" from Win32 to WinRT." No, it does not. The article negates your whole comment if you read it.
  • From the article:
    they can then migrate formal Win32 code to UWP ones to make it an actual, Universal Windows App
    Even a comment fell for that impression:
    developers can little by little turn the app into an universal app from a win32 app
    Only the purest core code can be retained but the rest has to be rewritten. I think it's a disservice to readers to give them false hope of some sort of mass Win32-to-UWP migration. It isn't going to happen.  
  • Couldn't help but notice that you skipped over my comment. But you have it completely wrong, migration is not needed since you can actually call the WinRT APIs from Win32 apps, and this article even references that: ' "old" desktop app can now take advantage of many modern UWP features' and then it goes on to list things that Win32 apps can do when calling into the WinRT APIs. I do find it interesting how you are so against porting Win32 apps to WinRT, while you seem to have no problem doing it to iOS and Android. This is taking an existing Win32 app, allowing devs to make strategic calls into the WinRT APIs to pin some tiles to the start menu, send some notifications, etc. All of that takes very little to add. And yet, rewriting all the UI to iOS or Android, seperating out logic from presentation, and in the case of Android interfacing Java and C++ is not a problem that is very easy to do. Or is it that you haven't a damn clue what you are talking about and just repeating what some other person heard from some other person who ... Well, you get the idea. Please, again, educate yourself about development. I have, maybe you can too.
  • Calm down, Alice. I ported one of my C++ Win32 programs to WinPRT80 back in 2012/early 2013. That required separating the core C++/D3D11 code from the UI layer because WinPRT80 didn't support monolithic C++ apps. You had to have a C# layer for the UI. Anyway, the app was released in 2013. Sales trickled in ... a year of WinPRT80 sales equaled one day of Win32 sales. WP died on the vine and sales have stopped. Game over. Starting from that base, this year I converted the C++ code, which used tons of Win32-specific APIs for multithreading, to fully portable C++11. The C++11 multithreading standard isn't as fast or functional as Win32's but it wasn't a showstopper. I also abstracted away D3D11 in the rendering layer so that I could slip in an OpenGL ES3 renderer underneath. The goal is to have a fully portable C++11 core with thin platform-specific layers on top and underneath. XCode is very good at combining Swift and C++ (through a C glue layer). You can set breakpoints in both Swift and C++. You couldn't do the equivalent, breakpoints in C# and C++, in VS2012 when I was writing the WinPRT80 app (I think VS2013 fixed that problem). Anyway, it wasn't and isn't easy but you know what? With an iOS version I at least have a chance of recouping my development effort in actual sales of the program. I have to respond to the mobile threat to my Win32 base. I "own" the Win32 space in my field (real time scientific data display and analysis) but my competitors own iOS and Android. If I'm going to be cannabalized by mobile, I want to be the cannibal.  
  • You should understand the context of the WHOLE article before spewing nonsense. 1) A Win32 app gets repackaged. The re-write is minimal. MS demonstrated with Photoshop Elements and the only thing they had to do to get it working was to pull out was the licensing from the installer. 2) The article states nothing about hoping for a mass Win32-to-UWP migration. 3) So, you have no problem porting your apps to iOS and Android but want make a fuss about not porting to UWP because, well,  you have no idea what you're talking about. Do you have something against MS to make these comments?
  • lame trolls just procastrinate here - and suck YOUR energy & time like a vampire.
  • You can use fopen and C libraries under WinRT. Have done so multiple times, initially. But you are constrained to your apps location, while anything else requires FilePicker. It should be exactly the same on iOS and Android, otherwise the security of those systems will be compromised.
  • Yes, as I noted it is contrained to your app's playground. All the rest are forced through the awful Async APIs and FileBroker, which kills performance.
  • Stop comparing PCs to mobile. Apple was smart enough to no sabotage Macs with iOS restrictions.
  • Intel bowing out of the mobile computing is a bad news for Microsoft, Windows and Win32 developers. The idea of a true PC in your phone seems a long way from now from where things stand today. Microsoft, of course, is not unaware of the fact. What they are doing is 1) Continue developing Universal Windows Platform which also supports ARM and that is where all the mobile computing innovation seems to be taking place. Infact, ARM based Apple A chips in IPads rivals Intel Core i5 processors in single core performance. And with Apple continuously demoing photo and video editing softwares for iPads show how powerful can ARM be for resource and/or graphic intensive tasks and yet on the same time being efficient in power management. ARM does seem to be the future of computing now. Of course, it will take a great deal from Microsoft and its developers to bring the traditional win32 code to UWP for it to work on all sorts of Windows devices and services.
    2) During this period of transition, virtualization may provide temporary solution for running win32 on ARM hardware.
    3) Ultimately, though I think the future of computing is in cloud. With cloud doing all the hard data processing and graphic rendering while end consumers will just need to have devices with a screen, interactive tools like touch, keyboard-mouse, wireless radios and a faster internet connection to stream to and from the input and out data from user to cloud where it gets processed and rendered and back to the user. This is the real agnotism. And I think Microsoft's real play with UWP and cross platform development is to get developers on Microsoft's technologies so that when the time is right (an era of blazing fast internet), the world adopts their cloud platform for cloud computing rather than their competitors. Look at what they are doing with Edge (which is a web platform) and in terms of cloud computing can be seen as a competitor to Google's chrome books. And then there is Cortana, which can be seen as an interface, an interaction middle service, from end users device to cloud and back. Coming to think of it, it all makes sense right?
    Oh, I would have loved a true x86 based phone in my pocket but technology already reaching a tipping point, Moore's law getting screeching to a halt and there was no way we could have defied the physics. Wireless technologies for Internet on other hand has lot to move forward which is where hardware vendors like Intel and even Nokia are gearing for. In the meantime, it remains to be seen how much powerful ARM becomes before we can long longer push the limits in this space any further and how (and if) Microsoft will leverage their development platform to make use of that.
  • Good post.
  • "Oh, I would have loved a true x86 based phone in my pocket but technology already reaching a tipping point, Moore's law getting screeching to a halt and there was no way we could have defied the physics." Asus already made a phone(Zenfone 2) with an Intel Atom x86 processor in it, and a guy over on XDA even installed Windows 7 on it. The hardware and technology was already here, but now it's too late.
  • Yes sadly oh well someone will develop an alternative. Posted via the Windows Central App for Android (from my Nexus 5x or LG V10)
  • There is a reason Intel's mobile x86 SoCs hasn't been mass adopted. Not good enough cellular radios, gpu, cpu, battery performance and expensive. Maybe these claims are false may be they are not. If Intel doesn't trust them to be good enough for mobile, how can we expect them to run win32 software on it?
  • Bad post.
  • All I really want to know is when the Elite x3 is coming out. June? Soon? No speculation lately. Posted from Windows Central for Windows 10 Mobile BETA
  • It's timed with Redstone 1/Annivesary, so maybe closer to July. Nothing definite yet.
  • The main problem with intel is that the Nvidia X1, Qcom 820 & Apple a9x are very close to i3 level performance, so in order to win in mobile Intel would have to sacrifice their entry level icore revenue. Atom x7 is a $35 cpu, the mobile i3 is a $200+ cpu. They always had this conflict of interest and crippled the Atom line to protect their higher margin processors. Now that the tablet market is falling and smartphones are peaking, Intel is stepping away from the battlefield. A $1000 surface phone with a core M ($280 cpu per 1000 tray), virtualization like what MS is doing with the Xbox1 and Apple did with power PC  or cloud access to x86 are the only viable solutuions for Win32 apps on a Surface phone when docked.
  • Problem with Core M is it's not SoC and does not have radio support. Not yet at least.
  • Intel still makes mobile modems. Samsung & Apple use seperate modems in their flagship phones, but then that would add to the already costly bill of materials costs.
  • If you bolt Core M to phone with all needed extra components how is the power consumption?
  • Kind of a buzz kill.
  • Microsoft should make a paint-like UWP app for touch+pen devices! And the "Surface Phone" must have Windows Ink!
  • People should watch the videos... ​It's not meant to be "universal" but it runs on Store which is the Universal windows platform. the point of calling it a "bridge" it's that developers can little by little turn the app into an universal app from a win32 app, if they desire, it can be done, little by little developers can do it so it runs on Mobile, Xbox, hololens. so while it's not a converter yet, it can be used as a way to eventually go universal. So win32 apps can run on mobile? no, but developers can use many things to be able to.
  • thank Dan for this article! I have mentioned this multiple times in various forums, but nope, people thought that it was to convert x86 apps to mobile.   Hopefully they can now get a clue...
  • Most modern apps made with Microsoft .NET Framework are compiled for "Any CPU" as default so technically they could run even on Windows 8 RT. The problem is Microsoft didn't allow desktop apps to be published on the store for Windows 8 RT because they wanted to push Modern apps but it backfired and for the phone, Windows Mobile doesn't implement Windows Forms API. The problem, off course, is with all of the other apps made with C++ or Java or other obscure languages for which vendors have to provide a compiler for ARM. The good news are, with Centennial and with a better Windows Store devices like the Surface RT or a Surface Phone (running ARM) would be viable
  • maybe its time to ask the developers what they need to port their apps.
  • but if the evidence of WIndows 10 Mobile x64 is ture then, those x86 app converted thru continent might be run on those w10m
  • You can use RemoteApp today to virtualize an app to WM10.
  • Dang I would hope that it could indeed bring apps to mobile. There should be some sort of way to make the apps convert. This could become the largest store on the market
  • In my opinion, MS must have an alternative to Intel's Atoms. I cannot believe that two giants like MS and Intel had agreed in a partnership for a phone that would change the standards and Intel bailed out without notifying MS for this move months ago. It is just not the way business is done.
  • Intels real target could have been Apple. And when it went to nowhere it was time to call it quits. Intel would not have been crazy enough to bind its smartphone strategy to failed platform.
  • I don't think it is a failed platform. If you speak about WP8x, yes, it is. W10 and WP10 share a large portion of the code. WP10 is not supposed to be the future for MS. I believe that is used as a bridge for W10 being ported in mobile devices. If not through x86 chips, then through another hardware or software technology. As I said in a previous article, it just doesn't make sense for a tech giant like MS to invest billions of dollars to W10 (PCs and mobiles) without having a roadmap or information from tech companies like Intel. So, I don't think it is a failed platform. They may have lost some percent in the market for now, but it is clear they are waiting for the Surface phone with a polished W10 OS. Only then they can dominate the market through the intergration of devices that W10 provides. The other two competitors (Apple and Google) may have almost the whole pie, but they don't have a roadmap for device intergration. This is the future and MS is betting there. Only Google has a way to port their apps on Chromebooks but the market share of these devices is insignificant. And also the Google strategy is only this: a porting of the apps. Without rescalling for desktop use. I don't think it is viable. MS has the best bet for the future in my opinion. All that I said is connected to WP10 as we have the UWP. So, in conlusion, I don't believe WP10 is a failed platform.
  • I had that sneaking suspicion that Centennial wasn't going to be quite what it was cracked up to be when it comes to ARM and mobile.
  • If it was ever cracked up to be more than it is then it was by commentators who didn't understand the technical aspects rather than by Microsoft. Persoanlly, I never expected it to be anything but what it is.
  • There's been more than just commentators, here, who have been endlessly speculating as to whether it would be possible, through some circuitous means, of getting win32 apps to run on cell phones (which are mostly ARM)... and a lot of that speculation was fuelled by the press. I think the average layman can be forgiven for being at least a little confused.
  • Of course, but the blame for that doesn't belond with Microsoft.
  • When I say "commentators" I don't mean "commenters". The press ARE the commentators.
  • 1) knowingly pump up "hope" for a device with a feature (run x86 EXE)  that is SURELY not in the plans
    2) name it something like "The Surface Phone" - let it spread like a Polio virus
    3) wait Microsoft to "fail to deliver" because it was never ever in the plans
    => even the biggest fans now hate Microsoft - instead of those other sites than Windows Central - those, who blutantly LIE !!
    -----------------------------------------------
    This was an extremely important article!
    Thank you!
  • One thing I don't understand is why there was developer outcry over Astoria but not Islandwood. I realise that they each take a different approach to getting apps from another platform onto Windows but the aim of both is to make that migration possible with a minimum of effort from the developer using their original code. I can see why that prospect would trouble those who have invested in creating native Windows apps, be they UWA or earlier, but I don't see why Astoria was such a threat but Islandwood isn't.
  • Astoria = Android 80% market share / Islandwood = iPhone 20% market share. That's one reason as I understood...
  • There must be more to it than that because there was no big outcry over Astoria until it actually appeared on Windows devices, albeit in an early form.  Everyone knew that it was supposed to be an easy way to get Android apps onto Windows from when it was announced and they knew what Android's market share was that whole time.  It's more about the way it was implemented.  I can only assume that it was because it seemed like people were able to get Android apps running on Windows without any changes at all in some cases, as opposed to the developer having to at least create a Windows-compatible package.
  • Straight up reporting. Thanks Dan!
  • Here is a good way to put it. It's like having your product on Amazon.com. It's much easier to discover a product when it is in a centralized distribution center that many people already go to then your own local location. Or it's like having your product in Target or what ever distribution center. It gives a wider audience for the most part.
  • Glad some people covering Windows Mobile are finally starting to make sense on the idea of an "Intel x86" phone - The idea is awful and remote desktop technology is the way to handle this. If the surface phone was to be an x86 phone it should be because the processor offers the best performance with the best battery life (Which I am highly skeptical that it could ever do) Features like continumn should not come at the expense of the core mobile experience  
  • Firstly I am shocked to know that Intel has shut down Atom processor that was used on budget Windows 10 tablet PC. Secondly, the UWP should support the entire .Net framework and all the APIs. That may allow the legacy windows apps to be installed on Windows phones. Besides making UWP apps more powerful, it can solve the app gap problem in an instant.
  • Store is failure on OSX. It will fail on Windows PC's as well. Consumers just don't buy apps on PC. They did not buy programs when they were called that and wont be buying apps. Businesses don't buy apps either but licenses.
  • UWP potentially means one app across all forms, PC, mobile and tablet. Get it now?
  • No. Don't see how that could make Windows store on PC success.
  • Hmmm this could mean if now malicious apps could be ported to Appx, hackers n others can take advantage of same.. Appx is now vulnerable too..! Although MS could keep this away with precautions such as scanning .. But sideloading apps can anyway harm ur device. We just got as vulnerable as Android. Posted via Windows Central App for Windows 10/Android
  • sub.
  • Even if this works, will the converted apps usable on mobiles? Most x86 apps are designed to use with mouse & keyboard only, some don't even scale well on hi-dpi screens.
  • Even if this works, will the converted apps usable on mobiles? Most x86 apps are designed to use with mouse & keyboard only, some don't even scale well on hi-dpi screens.
    Please read article for answer to your question...
  • There is no x86 mobile.
  • This will become extremely useful, if MS gets Win32 x86 APIs to ARM. Then a true UWP app can be made from traditional apps. This will be real win win situation. Right now only making x86 complaint UWP app ignores ARM Windows slates and phones. But again ARM devices make a small share in MS landscape, so I guess MS is not worrying about it much.
    Also, Intel scrapping mobile plans, make things more difficult! Posted via Windows Central App for Windows 10/Android