Hi,
I just installed visio, and the installer almost seemed like it was built in flash. The buttons kinda glowed when I hovered over them, and when I clicked on 'continue' the form phased out in a cool way.
I'm assuming it was built in WPF.
Anyhow, so are WPF more flash-like (visually speaking). Do they have new properties where you can make forms phase out nicely/smoothly compared to winforms?
You can do a lot of flash w/ Winforms, or with custom components. But if you want out-of-the-box bang-whizz availability, WPF is the way to go.
Yeah, I think the intention is to be flash-like, it seems to me that MS has set its sights on taking down Adobe.
The way I see it: WPF is to Flash as WinForms is to Flex. WPF has more emphasis on vectors and states than on programming.
Disclaimer: I work for Microsoft. However, I don't work on Visio, WPF, CLR or Silverlight team. So, the following is my personal take on these technologies. If you want to quote me, don't do it implying it's the official Microsoft position. :-))
Update: Anything I say below about Flash/Flex/AIR might be wrong, as I have not worked with these technologies and what I know about them is based on what I read on the intertubes. :-) If you notice anything wrong, just shout in the comment and I'll correct it.
To the best of my knowledge, the Visio installer is not built with WPF. It's all unmanaged code; it's just people took a lot of care to make it really polished.
WPF is the new UI platform for building standalone applications for the Windows OS. It supports a declarative UI language - XAML, and related CLR types to program against. WPF is a different platform than WinForms, although it is possible to build applications that mix UI built with both. WPF supports a lot of things that WinForms does not, like bitmap effects, animations, control styling and so on and exposes them both in XAML or through code. Also, WPF relies heavily on vector graphics, as opposed to the pixel graphics in WinForms. In short, WPF is quite powerfull and allows building very snazzy UI. (Don't take my word for it, though, as I am biased; go check around for what people are saying about it or buiding with it. :-))
WPF and WinForms do not compete with Flash/Flex. WPF and WinForms are both UI frameworks for building standalone client applications. As far as I know, Flash/Flex are frameworks for building rich internet applications - RIA (though lately people started interpreting this abbreviation as rich interactive applications).
Adobe did come up with AIR about half a year (or maybe a year) ago, which allows building standalone client applications, so you could say that Adobe is trying to position Flash/Flex/AIR to compete with WPF. Of course, that's my take on it and I doubt Adobe's official positiong is anything like that.
If you want to compare particular MS technnologies with Flash/Flex, take a look at Silverlight - it's the MS RIA platform.
Silverlight is related to WPF in the sense that they share XAML and the corresponding CLR types. Silverlight supports only a subset of what WPF offers, though, as it is not targeting Windows OS only and thus is limited by the fact that it has to be portable.
Quick update to reflect the changes in the year since I've written the answer :-)
With Silverlight 3 shipped, SL and WPF are getting even closer and sharing bigger set of supported features. In addition, most of the new XAML controls are built for platform at the same time. Thus, SL/WPF are getting to a point of singularity...
Also, SL 3 supports out-of-browser applications. In that sense, SL is not only starting to compete with Flash/Flex, but it is also encroaching on AIR's turf.
And no, I still don't work on the WPF or Silverlight team. :-)
WPF is being used as a replacement for WinForms, and as a competitor to Flash in the form of Silverlight. WPF consists of an entirely new object model that sits on top of DirectX (at least the desktop version). You can create WPF windows, controls, etc, entirely using C# or another .Net language just like you can render WinForms. However, Microsoft has also created a markup language called XAML (eXensible Application Markup Language). Nodes in an XAML document (XML) map to objects in a similar fashion to the way ASP.Net maps to web controls. XAML typically exists in a .Net project alongside a code-behind style C# file (or VB.Net or whatever). The C# file interacts with the objects generated by the XAML. This is fairly consistent with the "graphics via markup, logic via code" model that Microsoft and others are pushing.
One of the overlooked features when discussing WPF is the completely awesome data-binding that Microsoft wrote for WPF. The new data binding framework is a quantum leap beyond Windows Forms 2.0 data-binding. Microsoft added a couple of new interfaces that make it much easier to make an object or collection emit data-biding events properly. They also provided a very rich set of data-binding classes. You can bind anything to just about anything else. You can bind one-way data to control, control to data, two-way control to data and back, control to control, etc.
Back on the graphics side of the house, WPF makes it fairly easy to make an existing control look like anything. WP lets you compose your own template for what a class of buttons should look like, or one button, or all buttons. Or radio buttons. Or labels. You get my drift. Imagine if CSS included the ability to define what an input button would look like using other HTML controls.
They also provide a number of layout controls. You can continue to use exact positioning like in WinForms, or you can leverage of variety of techniques to make your window act more like a web page that grows and shrinks with resizing, etc.
The downsides: It is too easy to create spectacular effects that crawl on slower machines. Some of the graphics do not take advantage of hardware of graphics cards, though Microsoft has incrementally improved support for this. I believe when 3.0 first came out drop shadows were rendered purely using software. I think 3.5 or 3.5 SP1 changed it so that WPF would utilize graphics hardware for the task. Microsoft has said they will continue to enhance WPF in this fashion.
WPF is .Net 3.0 and above, which runs on XP SP2, Vista, and Servers 03 & 08. So don't plan on deploying WPF to a customer with Win2k desktops.
Summary: If you are doing desktop programming in .Net, you should be doing it in WPF unless you are targeting Win2k. You can avoid the downsides of WPF, and there are many upsides. Microsoft will probably throw away WinForms in some future release, or at very least you will stop seeing new features, etc.
As far as Silverlight goes, the betas for SL 2.0 look good. I think that Silverlight will require some wide-spread adoption. Microsoft has already tried to get this going. The NBC Olypmics site used Silverlight, and Major League Baseball uses it for its MLB.tv product. As soon as Silverlight gets a good install base I think you will see the Microsoft side of the development world starting swinging away from Flash and to Silverlight.
Edit after using Silverlight 3 and MVVM:
I have moved away from WPF and am doing a lot of Silverlight 3 development. But I think my comments here will still apply to the WPF developer.
I have been using the MVVM pattern in my app (think MVC with a twist). The Microsoft Patterns and Practices team has released a set of libraries known as Prism that supports various aspects of MVVM. There are WPF and Silverlight versions. Take a look at MVVM and Prism if you are going to be doing WPF or Silverlight development.