I’ll venture they’re not moving from a PC to IoT Core. In that case, they’ll be moving to IoT Enterprise, which is the “desktop” driver model.
So… let’s see: Yes, there is new software, and lots of it, being created using these technologies.
And I will personally guarantee you that Windows will remain “relevant” for the next 10 years. There’s just too much corporate line-of-business use, too much inertia in the installed base, for Windows to disappear in that time-frame. Most Corporate systems are still Windows. Most big industrial control systems are based on Windows. Most medical systems are based on Windows.
So, yeah… There’ll be lots of drivers written for new devices, lots of file system filters, lots of “stuff” done on Windows in the next 10 years.
But would I *completely and exclusively* bet on Windows, the way I did in, say 1999? No, no way. For proof, see: https:</https:>
The *real* question (and what I think you’re actually asking) is “Will Windows remain a vital, evolving, developing force in computing with a growing user base for the next 10 years? And if not… what is?”
And, that, sir is the multi-billion dollar question. If you could answer it, you’d stand the chance to become very wealthy indeed.
This times 100.
The fact that the Universal INF model does not allow ClassInstall32 sections is a BIG fucking problem. I can’t BELIEVE our MSFT friends do not see this. I *get* that they want “declarative” INF files. But there’s no reason that having a ClassInstall32 section that INCLUDES the Class GUID can’t be “declarative.”
What annoys me about these little things is that they are PRECISELY the types of problems that close interaction with the third party driver development community would avoid. If they had a conference and discussed this plan, we would have been able to give them feedback that not allowing custom device classes was a VERY bad idea.
Peter
OSR
@OSRDrivers