I thought about converting an application of mine from WPF 4 to Silverlight 4. One of my reasons was the impression that Silverlight as subset of .Net 4 should need less computer resources so it would run better on netbooks. I checked this and was surprised to see that the minimum system requirements are even higher:
WPF: "Pentium 1 GHz or higher with 512 MB RAM or more"
Silverlight: X86 or x64 1.6-gigahertz (GHz) or higher processor with 512-MB of RAM
Does this resemble your experiences? Do I really have to fear that my app will run slower if I do the conversion to Silverlight?
Thanks in advance.
This matches my experiences.
Silverlight is often not as optimized as WPF. Part of this is the runtime - the runtime is not quite as mature as the full desktop CLR, and part of this is the optimizations available. That being said, every version of Silverlight is improving its performance characteristics...
The largest problem in my experience is that silverlight doesn't fully utilizy your graphics adapter (since it must be able to run inside a browser sandboxed).
Well, I haven't benchmarked anything of the sort, but I can reflect on theory.
Silverlight is sandboxed, WPF is not. The sandboxing has a cost (at the very least lots of extra checks to throw SecurityException).
Silverlight is made to run inside a browser, using a plug-in. WPF is made to run on the desktop, using the naked framework.
WPF was designed to 'replace' full native apps, so must be very optimized. Silverlight was designed to extend the web, which is not so responsive to begin with.
So, my guess is: yes, Silverlight is a bit slower.
Related
It seems like these two technologies, already similar, are on a path to merge into a single technology. There are a lot more WPF-like controls in the Silverlight toolbox, and WPF now has Silverlight's VisaulStateManager. At this point, it's probably fair to say that Silverlight has even surpassed WPF in terms of the number of themes available.
How long until these two technologies become one? How long until the difference between a rich client app and a rich browser app is a simple compile-time setting?
EDIT
Let me clarify my question. I realize that any browser application needs to run in a "sandbox" for security reasons, and I also understand the desire to keep the browser plugin as small as possible, but there are several minor differences between the two technologies that could probably be massaged out without compromising either of these goals. For example, there could be a lot more overlap between UI controls and themes. Today, you can't just use a Silverlight theme in a WPF app, but how much of a leap would it be for Microsoft to make this possible?
I don't think they'll ever merge into one product. Microsoft has intentionally left a lot out of Silverlight to keep its footprint small. And then there's a plethora of security issues Silverlight must abide by when running in a browser. And of course they've designed it so it'll run on a PC or a Mac (unfortunately the same can't be said for the .NET Framework).
I am happy to see resources shared between WPF and Silverlight though. They were supposed to be similar from the beginning. As a result, it's relatively easy to port a Silverlight project into WPF. On the flip side, it's not quite as easy going from WPF to Silverlight simply because WPF has always had more features, but that's just the nature of the beast.
UPDATE:
So your revised question is interesting. It would be cool if Microsoft could make it possible for you to basically flip a switch to change the behavior of your app between Silverlight-like functionality and WPF. They would be facing a great deal of challenges though, not only with security but with the fundamental behaviors of some of the lightweight Silverlight controls vs the feature-rich WPF controls. These differences could potentially complicate things for the developer even further.
For example, in WPF there's a built-in multiple undo & redo system in the textboxes. In Silverlight there is no such thing so I actually had to write my own. In order for the developer to account for things like that they'd have to do build a lot of feature-checks into the application.
With all that said, I suppose a compile-time switch as you described might be feasible. But I still think it's unlikely Microsoft will create this kind of capability any time soon.
XAML and databinding may become closer between the two
but the rest of the framework will probably never be the same.
For once, you can not automate an Office application using Silverlight.
And that may never happen, unless MS decides to open a bridge of some sort
between the plug-in and the .NET Framework.
Security, consistence, and great UI are main driving forces in Silverlight.
If you can do something in Windows that you cannot do in Mac than
consistence is lost.
Silverlight installations has its own libraries built for specific operating systems. We as developers use what microsoft gives us that can run on those systems. WPF is full trust to the windows operating system which uses specific windows api calls.. So i'd say never will they merge.
Yes we will see that WPF and Silverlight becomes more and more alike, if the acutely will be merge? maybe It's not impossible but what we will see is just that what you stated that they will be more alike. So in the future you will not implement WPF OR Silverlight you will just implement XMAL.
I'm considering switching from MFC to WPF.
My first concern is that there are too many users who don't have .NET with WPF installed yet. Can anybody point to a source containing the WPF penetration numbers?
My second concern is speed.
Any other considerations?
I've been banging away at WPF for a while now. It is brilliant, but it still has (occasional) holes you've to plug yourself. However all indications are .NET 4.0 will be a significant step forward.
I would say start now. The WPF learning curve is REALLY steep, and it'll be a while before you'll be releasing software to users, believe me. Also do yourself a favour and get the WPF Unleashed book. It's superior.
Speed isn't a consideration. The power WPF gives is well worth any drawbacks with speed, which - coming from Windows Forms - I haven't noticed to be honest.
What kind of application are you developing? If it's a wide-distribution desktop app that you want your grandmother to install, your concern about .NET 3.0/3.5 adoption is valid. So far from what I've seen, performance is less of a concern.
WPF penetration
First of all, Windows Vista and Windows 7 both have WPF preinstalled, which accounts for 35% of the market automatically. Windows XP has had it as it had .NET Framework 3.0 as an option in Windows Update for over three years, and many applications ship with it, so it is likely to also be installed on a high percentage of Windows XP machines. StatOwl indicates that about 80% of NET Framework installations are version 3 or above.
If you're shipping on CD it is no big deal to include the latest .NET Framework on the CD and have it install automatically. If users are downloading your application, it can contact Microsoft's web server to download and install the latest .NET Framework. Online ClickOnce deployment also has this capability if you want people to be able to start their application directly from the web browser without installing it.
So the bottom line is, you probably don't need to worry about whether people will have WPF installed on their machines or not unless your target market consists primarily of dial up customers on Windows XP who don't run much third-party software (i.e., they just run Windows and your application).
Speed
Not an issue. I have a 200 MHz Pentium Pro with 384 MB RAM from 1998 that I test my software on, and my WPF applications have comparable performance with equivalent MFC applications. If your WPF application uses lots of fancy graphics and animation it will run slowly on ancient CPUs and graphics cards, but so would an ordinary MFC application with the same features.
Don't even bother trying to use WPF if you are sticking with Visual Studio 2008 for the next year or two. The experience will be way too painful. I'm talking about "my IDE crashed again" type of pain.
If you are going to use VS 2010 in the near future, then WPF is a blast. Download the beta, a couple of themes off CodePlex, are start playing. Once you get past the (freaking huge) learning curve I think you will find it to be quite enjoyable.
IMHO, you should wait for Visual Studio 2010 and WPF 4.0 to make the actual migration. They will close some very annoying gaps in the product.
Meanwhile, you can try it out. In terms of coding/readability -- it's going to be WAAAY better than with MFC =)
As for the performance and platform -- it shouldn't be a problem unless you have any very special circumstances (like if you can't require users to install .NET).
Also see this related question on switching to WPF from Windows Forms.
If you are thinking about a larger, modular, appliation I recommend checking out Prism. It's a bit of a beast itself, but you should be able to tackle it after coming to grips with C#, Dependency Properties and XAML. Plus, learning Prism gave me a much better understanding of WPF/Silverlight, at least from the development/binding side.
Mike Taulty posted an excellent 10 part video series on Prism. It's a great way to get your head around the platform.
I'd also recommend the pages linked to from the Getting Started page on codeplex. After all that, you're probably ready to tackle the Reference Implementation which comes with the download.
A previous answer of mine might also help clear up any remaining confusion around Controllers/Presenters in the framework that you might have (I did).
Given the list of new features announced in Silverlight 4, when is WPF still required?
WPF still has a lot fuller 3D rendering capabilities.
Also even though they announced enhancements to the commanding and binding capabilities, that's no guarantee that it will have the full ability that WPF currently has or will have in the next version
Edit: After playing around with Silverlight 4 beta, it looks like pretty much all of the new features (webcam, file access, full screen keyboard, COM interop, etc) only work when the application is elevated trust, and elevated trust can only be enable when running out of browser. Some of this may change by RTW, but for now, WPF still looks like the only way to do these things inside of a browser window
I've been using mostly XBAPs for browser deployments while waiting for a Silverlight version that includes WPF's full templating and data binding capabilities. Perhaps Silverlight 4 will do it.
Several things that Silverlight 4 definitely won't be able to do are:
Allow you to seamlessly integrate your WinForms and MFC user interface components with your application
Efficiently work with data file structures originally defined in C/C++ (with WPF you can simply copy the code across and easily replicate the original C++ code using unsafe and StructLayoutAttribute)
Include unmanaged C++ code in your application
I have not actually downloaded the Silverlight 4 beta yet, so this list is necessarily incomplete.
The next version of Visual Studio will not be written in Silverlight ;) I can't wait to write an Audio utility in WPF---and Silverlight must be sand-boxed away from the incredible Windows Audio subsystem. However, I can see the day when WPF will be called Silverlight (or perhaps the other way around).
When you don't want to depend on a browser to do your work, when you need full and fast access to the file system without prior confirmation, when doing interop with unsafe bits of code. These are the few I can think of, but they might be other reasons as well, depending on what features Silverlight 4 will really have and how well will they really work.
The applications we (in our company) write today use nothing that is not supported by Silverlight except for local TCP/IP connections without limitations.
This is the only reason we are using WPF.
If we could use Silverlight instead (desktop mode) we'd be able to give our customers
the choice of working on Mac (and linux) systems as well instead of being forced (by us?)
to use a recent version of Windows (you'd be surprised how many companies still use old (partially) unsupported versions).
Even in WPF we try to limit access to the system, we create our own sandbox and
try not to go outside of it. (Never require admin rights, never access stuff you don't have to)
So for what we do, Silverlight + real tcp/ip support would be more than enough...
but there is absolutely still room for WPF and I'm pretty sure it's here to stay.
It all depends on what you're building.
Silverlight will always favor small payloads over functionality. Strategically, Microsoft will attempt to out feature Adobe's offerings using Silverlight, while WPF will be competing against other heavy platforms. If you look at WPF 4 you'll notice a push towards heavier weight features. I try to keep in mind that WPF started out as Avalon which was intended to permanently displace Win32. I won't be surprised if one day Windows XX is "native" WPF and Win32 will be emulated.
If you want to do direct database access through ADO.NET that's not something you'll be able to do in Silverlight 4. Access to devices will still be limited although you will now have some printing support and webcam/microphone. I haven't heard anything about 64 bit support so if you want to offer a 64 bit version of your app you'll need WPF. I also think even if Silverlight 4 makes better use of the GPU, it still won't be to the level that WPF utilizes it.
There are also a ton of other assemblies in the .NET framework that Silverlight doesn't include so if you need any of those you'll need to go WPF.
Just like HTML5 will reduce the need for a plugin like Flash or Silverlight in some cases, Silverlight will reduce the need for WPF but there are still plenty of cases where you'll need it.
WPF is still required if you need to do extensive Rich Text (FlowDocument) editing. Silverlight 4 has the new RichTextBox, but it is limited to very basic content, and doesn't provide the full set of features that are available in FlowDocuments in WPF. A FlowDocument can effectively do what the WinForms RichTextBox can do; but if you only need the basics, a RichTextBox in Silveright may do what you need.
The bottom line is that silver light is limiting. So, if you are going to use a less capable technology you should have a compelling reason for doing so. The only one I can come up with, and it is a big one in some circumstances, is that Silverlight is more platform indifferent. I just can't imagine anyone wanting to bring the browser and all of it's headaches into a solution. There must be a good reason.
Silverlight Out of Browser technology and WPF ClickOnce on the surface have similarities. Easy and simple deployment, the ability to specify the level of trust access to the underlying host, etc.
What are the key issues I need to consider when choosing one over the other?
To put a finer point on it, I'll be deploying LOB apps on a corporate network running only windows computers.
The big one is cross platform compatibility. If you need you app to run on a mac as well as windows (not sure if Silverlight is supported in Linux yet) then use Silverligt. If you want to make an assumption that all your users will be in a windows machine then go WPF.
Obviously WPF has a much richer toolkit than silverlight so it may well be that silverlight just isn't an option. If I was just building for windows though I know my job would be easier in WPF.
Given that you are targetting a private infrastructure running Windows, two points worth thinking about
Wpf has a richer control tree, whereas Silverlight is a reduced set for compact size
Wpf requires .Net framework installed locally, whereas Silverlight has its own platform independent browser-based runtime
While your target platform will likely have the latest .Net framework installed, rendering this last point moot, keep in mind any updates to the framework [ie .Net4.0 and any future updates] may require a restart of the machine - which is a major pain point for businesses that demand constant-on stateful desktops [ie anything in finance, like banks and trading].
As with all problems, your requirements, not the technology, should inform your solution. :)
You mentioned trust access to the host which I think rules out Silverlight unless you want to run SL4 (beta).
We recently went through a lot of discussion about file system access. Silverlight 3 runs in a partial trust sandbox more or less. You can't maintain a pointer to files in the files system outside of your application's isolated storage. This was an issue for us as we wanted the user to be able to use the application to reference odds and ends on your file system. That said you can allow the users to load and save files from anywhere on the system but you just get/or push the file stream and (to the best of my knowledge) don't have access to the folder or file path information.
Silverlight 4 (in beta) has support for your application running in full trust mode. I haven't played with this yet however and can't speak to how well it works.
In talking with a lot of people who work with both Silverlight and WPF, even those who are excited about Silverlight and push for it strongly, I hear a lot of the say fairly emphatically that if you are going to be developing exclusively for a full-trust Windows environment, WPF is hands-down the obvious choice.
That's not to say that Silverlight is an inferior product or that there aren't times will Silverlight will be the clear winner. But when you say "I'll be deploying LOB apps on a corporate network running only windows computers," it sounds like WPF is the clear winnder.
You could decide to go down the Silverlight route in anticipation of all of the great new OOB feature os SL4. I've even heard rumors that SL and WPF will eventually merge, so it may not even really matter, right? Well, I think what you'll find if you go with Silverlight is that some of the advanced features that you thought were there weren't there in the way you expected. For example, SL4 will be able to run in "Elevated Trust" (not full trust) and you might find this limiting at a frustrating point in the project where a lot of your code base is already in Silverlight.
Certainly keep your eyes on Silverlight, but for your current business case, WPF will likely be the best fit.
Silverlight 3.0 beta has just been announced at Microsofts Mix Conference in Las Vegas.
Two features of the new beta are 3D-graphics and the ability to run applications outside of the browser, which to me seemed to be two of the major features that WPF (Windows Presentation Foundation) previously offered over silverlight.
I am currently evaluating WPF and Silverlight for possible use in our companies future development activity, and this announcement has left me confused as to the intended direction of these two UI technologies and why I would choose one over the other.
Has anyone implemented a new application using WPF recently, and if so, what drove you to that decision? Given the announced changes to silverlight, Would your decision have changed had you made it now, and if not, why?
Any advice would be appreciated.
The biggest difference I find is the asynchronous model you have to adopt
in your Silverlight application.
It does seems like an advantage (and it can be), but it does make
life very difficult sometimes.
There are also some limitations that can be a real challenge like the absence
of print support.
I would recommend Silverlight over WPF when:
- There is no need for best possible performance (graphics included)
- Can get around the absence of print support (it will come, we just don't know when)
- Camera/Microphone support is not needed
- Can tolerate the assync app/development model
- Can tolerate limitations on WCF (no support for WS-Security at this point)
- There is no need to store huge amount of data on the client.
- There is no need to direct integration with client side applications like Office.
- Has a server to host your application
I would say the main difference is that WPF requires the client to have the .Net 3.0+ framework. Silverlight only requires the runtime. Now that being said, WPF is geared more for controlled environments such as an intranet. Silverlight is meant for the public web. Another difference is that Silverlight is cross platform (Windows, Mac, Linux in the future & Cross browser). WPF is meant for Windows only.
The .Net framework can be a huge download for some users. Silverlight is only 4-5MBs. This is a big difference to run your app on the web, but not a big issue if its an internal application at your company.
Silverlight is Sandboxed which is meant for web use. So if your app requires more permissions you will need WPF.
There are also some differences between Silverlight code and WPF. But from what I've heard, the ultimate goal is to get a Silverlight to run inside of WPF with minimal code changes. But they aren't there just yet.
I have just worked on a WPF project that in hindsight we feel we might have chosen SilverLight for. It is probably more important to know the differences and select the one that is most appropriate for what you're doing.
Here's my starter for ten on some of the important differences - there were originally some differences in the available controls, but that has largely been smoothed out now.
Silverlight
Runs entirely on the client with AJAX
calls to the server for data
Can run on any server, including Windows and Linux / Apache
Uses COMPACT .NET framework
WPF
Runs on the client... usually calls services for data
Runs on Windows XP / Vista with .NET 3.5
Utilises the entire .NET framework
Silverlight is basically a stripped down version of WPF in order to make the runtime libary download as small as possible.
As a result, WPF simply has a lot more functionality available in it and tasks that are simple in WPF often become not so simple in Silverlight.
If running as a web app is not a requirement then the decision is a no-brainer - WPF all the way.
Has anyone implemented a new application using WPF recently, and if so, what drove you to that decision: Well since WPF was desktop only (or browser based using XBAPS - but that was more a deployment system than a real system) that was a good reason to it.
"Would your decision have changed had you made it now, and if not, why?" - No Silverlight, even on the desktop in v3, is still highly sandboxed and so certain functions are going to be hard/impossible to do due to the sandbox. Also the ability to use DirectX parts in WPF will still give another optimisation area which Silverlight and it's 3d won't be able to use.
It's worth noting that Silverlight's 3D is not the full 3D support of WPF, but only projection of 2D into 3D - i.e. take the 2D plane and allow rotation in X, Y & Z directions. WPF has full 3D modelling with materials, view ports, lighting and camera positional support etc.
I'm well along in the development of our first WPF app for release. Silverlight 3 looks great, but for this application I would still have chosen WPF. The application centers around presenting and manipulating very large sets of images hosted on a central server on our clients' networks. Additionally, the software update/change rate will be minimal. Mass import of new images from a local drive, no Internet connectivity requirements, performance concerns, etc. make this a project well suited for WPF.
One of our upcoming projects, however, will require many remote users to access a single data store on our network. The data they work with requires significant validation and error handling, so running that code locally is ideal. They will need the ability to work both on and offline and remain in synch (probably with SQL Data Services). SLOOB (Silverlight Out Of the Browser) will most likely be our choice for that one so they can have all the Silverlight advantages but use it like a regularly installed application, even without an Internet connection.
Both formats have their place: the trick will be to avoid using Silverlight for everything - we have more tools than just 1 hammer. :-)
Another difference is that with SL you only have one 'window', you can't have dialogs (they can be simulated but their size is limited to the main window) and you can't add multi monitor support.
If you have to interact with existing business applications (e.g. open a document in the archive viewer) you need to use WPF.
I recently have built several internal tool using wpf, and I chose it simply because It was easier for me coming from win32 work. I don't really think that the differences are major, and really... everything i have seen/heard indicates that porting between wpf and silverlight is quite easy.
Storage: You only have 25MB of isolated storage out-of-browser. If I remember correctly from some mix09 video, this limit is lower if your app is in-browser.
http://bliny.net/blog/post/Out-of-Browser-with-Silverlight-3.aspx
No FlowDocument: So there are limitations there too.