A future for Windows Forms?

Isn't that what we've been saying?

---
Vince

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Discussion forum for developers using Windows
Forms to build apps
and
> controls [mailtoOTNET-WI
NFORMSDISCUSS.DEVELOP.COM] On Behalf Of Peter
> Ritchie
> Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 10:33
> To: DOTNET-WINFORMSDISCUSS.DEVELOP.COM
> Subject: Re: [DOTNET-WINFORMS] A future for Windows
Forms?
>
> Even though WPF is heading in the direction of
providing an .NET-based UI
API,
> WinForms will still need to be supported in future
versions of the
framework for
> supported Windows versions.  Support for WinForms will
not go away anytime
soon.
> In addition, support for WinForms--and plain-old-
Windows-applications
(POWA)--
> will need to be supported by WPF.  This probably means
support for
WinForms (as it
> will be part of the OS) for a long time.
>
>
> On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 23:39:35 -0400, Brown, Peter
> <peter.brownAPPLIEDIS.COM> wrote:
>
> >Agreed, especially since WPF is built on the same
core presentation
> >technology (the Direct3d-based GDI/GDI+
replacement) that is being
> >introduced with Vista. Vista uses it at a lower
level than WPF, but it
> >is the same technology.
> >
> >I would expect to see WPF, or some future merger
between the best of
> >WPF and Windows Forms as the client presentation
technology going
> >forward. I have a hard time seeing windows forms as
we know it
> >increasing in adoption; I think that style will
become the new console
app.
> >
> >Of course, it all depends on adoption. Windows
Forms should have a far
> >higher adoption rate than it currently has, but
folks still insist on
> >struggling through web apps when they really don't
need to 
> >
> >WPF brings something to the table that
Battleship-gray Windows Forms
> >really lacks: sex appeal. You can have a perfectly
branded client-side
> >app that looks how you want it to look. That will
take some of the
> >appeal away from internally used web apps.
> >
> >The flip side is now you need UX designers for all
your apps, not just
> >your web apps, or it will be an even worse mess
than the introduction
> >of 3d control libraries to VB3 made with its inca
temple-like stacked
> >3d panels.
> >
> >I will say this: if anyone here has used Expression
Interactive
> >Designer (sparkle), it really is an enabling
technology. You can do
> >really great things with that tool. However, it
also has a curve as
> >steep as many animation and design packages (not as
complex as
> >something like 3ds max, but it could get there
quickly)
> >
> >If you're thinking about trying EID out, and
aren't in a hurry, there
> >should be a June CTP coming. They've hinted at
doing a release that
> >will run on the June CTP of Fx 3.0. If you're in a
hurry, download the
> >Beta 2 bits and May CTPs instead.
> >
> >Pete
> >
>
>________________________________________________________
________
> > Pete Brown - Lead Systems Architect, Project
Manager  Applied
> >Information Sciences, Inc. - Mid Atlantic Region 
Personal Site and
> >Blog: http://www.irritatedVow
el.com
> >    (.net, wpf, blog, wallpaper, woodworking,
railroading, photography)
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Discussion forum for developers using Windows
Forms to build apps
> >and controls [mailtoOTNET-WI
NFORMSDISCUSS.DEVELOP.COM] On Behalf Of
> >Vince P
> >Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 9:53 PM
> >To: DOTNET-WINFORMSDISCUSS.DEVELOP.COM
> >Subject: Re: A future for Windows Forms?
> >
> >I think taking a deep look at what's behind
Windows.Forms and WPF
> >provides some insight.
> >
> >For the most part the controls that Windows.Forms
exposes in classes
> >are simply "interop" wrappers around
WinAPI controls (some big
> >exceptions like the DataGridView, PropertyGrid,
etc.. but those are a
> >minority) (and yes, I know they are not anything
like interop stricky
> >speaking, at least on the surface).  They're
constrained by WinAPI and
> >Windows' GDI/GDI+.
> >
> >Where else can Windows.Forms go?  It's only going
to go as far as
> >WinAPI goes with some touch up around the edges. 
So likewise, is it
> >being "removed"?.. no more than WinAPI
is being removed. Which is to
> >say, maybe around 2200.
> >
> >WPF is obviously where the energy is being spent,
so it seems obvious
> >that in the future this is the way to go.