You'll likely find the reason they arent supporting the migration forward has to do with the whole RT reset matrix. In that if your target market for the near future is both RT & Pro experiences having the old dragging along for the ride is still in the same problem space as it is with deskstop. The Win8 team made a concious decision to put a line in the sand with its release by basically jettison the entire .NET current in way of the new and whilst Surface Pro still allows you to sneak your WPF/SL/Other solutions into the tablet space it's pretty much and will always be a case of you making your own way through that technical challenge alone.
With Win8 came new namespaces on a lot of existing IP :) so with that all roads point to new namespaces or bust. --- Regards, Scott Barnes http://www.riagenic.com On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 5:19 PM, Ian Thomas <[email protected]> wrote: > This must be the most divergent tangent from the original topic, but here > goes: **** > > It is not related to HTML support (would that have changed, I wonder?) but > my guess is that it is because the legacy 3rd-party add-ins for Office > would be largely VBA add-ins or perhaps C++ COM add ins (not ever written > as .NET with the aid of the PIAs for the various Office releases). Meski’s > short response was sufficient explanation.**** > > It is hard to move forward when you are forced to support quite old legacy > applications. **** > > If some small business or individual is used to running (for example) an > Outlook add-in from 4Team, which may have been updated to support Outlook > 97 through to Outlook 2013 – but not the 64-bit versions of Office - then > what would you expect Microsoft (or software publisher X – eg, Apple) to > do? **** > > In my view, it would be helpful to suggest that the 32-bit version may be > preferable, if that is what Microsoft recommends somewhere. **** > > Those with more technical advice or knowledge would make a judgement > whether the 64-bit version of say Excel might be better suited for their > use - perhaps to support huge spreadsheets? But many users would be pleased > enough with 32-bit versions. **** > > I’m not sure what you mean by stupid HTML crap. Do you mean XML-based > object model in the .docx, .xlsx (etc) file formats? Personally, I wouldn’t > complain about Microsoft’s ,NET support for Office development, in the 2009 > to 1013 time frame. I think it’s pretty good. **** > ------------------------------ > > **Ian Thomas** > Victoria Park, ****Western Australia******** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Katherine Moss > *Sent:* Sunday, May 12, 2013 12:40 AM > *To:* ozDotNet > *Subject:* RE: Is Surface really failing?**** > > ** ** > > Oh LOL. I never thought of that. I mean, Microsoft has just ruined >NET > Framework support in Office by touting their stupid HTML crap, so it’s > almost like it matters not anymore. **** > > ** ** > > *From:* [email protected] [ > mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] *On > Behalf Of *mike smith > *Sent:* Saturday, May 11, 2013 1:13 AM > *To:* ozDotNet > *Subject:* Re: Is Surface really failing?**** > > ** ** > > Because there are a lot of legacy addons for Office that haven't been > compiled for x64 Office. They will not work together (inProc calls) **** > > On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 6:09 AM, Katherine Moss <[email protected]> > wrote:**** > > Oh funny. But in light of what somebody said about Office, why do you > recommend 32 bit office on a 64 bit platform? I don’t get that. And > before today, I had never heard of it before. I’m in the market for Office > 2013, so which to get and why? I’d rather go for the 64 bit version, but > if that’s going to cause headaches for me later, then oh well. **** > > **** >
