What's new
  • Announcing New Ownership at Home Theater Forum. Learn More

Microsoft Windows 8 Makes a Showing at Computex (1 Viewer)

mattCR

Reviewer
HW Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2005
Messages
10,897
Location
Lee Summit, Missouri
Real Name
Matt
http://www.engadget.com/2011/06/01/live-from-microsofts-windows-8-preview-event-at-computex-2011/


Some of the bigger bulletpoints:


* Metro goes universal, across WP7 Phone, XBOX, Next Gen XBOX, Media Center Embedded, Win8, Tablet, Laptop..

* Metro goes "extension ready" with Media Center Extender and Media Library Extender now inbuilt in all platforms

* Expandable tile and migration, as previusly seen in "Surface" makes its way to home OS.

* Other surface functions, like "throw to side" and the reshuffle options will be valid.

In the end, quite a few of the surface modes + metro join. Switchable shells (like Linux) allow for a user to exist within the Metro shell, or switch to the Windows8 Explorer shell for older apps, maintaining backward support.




One Note: Because the Windows 8 Beta is very large, there is (without a doubt) quite a few here who may be already receiving the Windows8 beta, or are MSDN partners receiving. We can discuss anything that is "publicly knowable" but we you cannot break NDA on functionality OR propose features/services that can be confirmed as "non existent". Just a heads up :)
 

Sam Posten

Moderator
Premium
HW Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 30, 1997
Messages
32,438
Location
Aberdeen, MD & Navesink, NJ
Real Name
Sam Posten
I'm not nearly as harsh on 8 as Gruber is here:

http://daringfireball.net/2011/06/windows_8_fundamentally_flawed


But.... I really wish Microsoft would stick a line in the sand and start fresh on the desktop sometimes.

Start with Security and Permissions baked into the OS from the ground up. Pick Single User or MultiUser focused and go with it. Pick Touch or Mouse n. Keyboard as the primary input and make it exceptionally intuitive. The price of being all things to everyone is eternal mess.


And i forgot who wrote it this morning but I agree with it: It's not just that Microsoft doesn't understand Apple it's that they fundamentally don't agree and can't agree based upon the commitments they have made that they are not willing to back down on. What I've seen of 8 it looks like GREAT lipstick, but it's still lipstick.


I'll probably stick with 7 for my game boxes as long as I can.
 

DaveF

Moderator
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2001
Messages
27,262
Location
Catfisch Cinema
Real Name
Dave
I was impressed as I watched the demo video, seeing smart ideas like the snap-in multi-tasking... Until they tore off the mask and revealed bog-standard windows lurking just beneath the skin. It's neither fish nor fowl. A touch UI for mouse use? Mouse UI for touch use? Touch UI that falls back ro conversional windows at unexpected times? Given MS' partial Ribbon conversion of Office -- interesting idea that is incomplete and fails back to ancient, crufty dialogs - I'm skeptical they can or want to truly make a full tablet OS. But maybe they'll surprise us. If those WP7 guys can push aside the Windows guys, there's awesomeness to be created!
 

mattCR

Reviewer
HW Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2005
Messages
10,897
Location
Lee Summit, Missouri
Real Name
Matt
I looked at it as the reverse. The reality is, there are too many applications that will never be touch/tablet type friendly. Just like Linux allows for loading multiple shells based on use, if they can have it flip shells, there is nothing wrong with that (IMHO) and it could allow for great backwards compatibility while offering a different UI. It's a bit like the Windows Media Center UI, etc. I don't think they have a "touch that falls back to conventional" In fact, the way it works from all the videos I've seen is that it prompts you that an application is "legacy" and you can chose to switch shells or not.

Since they want a same development platform across all platforms (tablet, PC, etc.) it allows them one ecosystem on all fronts. This is pretty much what Google is trying to do with Chrome, to make Chrome laptop friendly, PC friendly, Tablet Friendly. Which means it has to support all those environments.
Originally Posted by DaveF

I was impressed as I watched the demo video, seeing smart ideas like the snap-in multi-tasking...

Until they tore off the mask and revealed bog-standard windows lurking just beneath the skin.

It's neither fish nor fowl. A touch UI for mouse use? Mouse UI for touch use? Touch UI that falls back ro conversional windows at unexpected times?

Given MS' partial Ribbon conversion of Office -- interesting idea that is incomplete and fails back to ancient, crufty dialogs - I'm skeptical they can or want to truly make a full tablet OS.

But maybe they'll surprise us. If those WP7 guys can push aside the Windows guys, there's awesomeness to be created!
 

mattCR

Reviewer
HW Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2005
Messages
10,897
Location
Lee Summit, Missouri
Real Name
Matt
Sam Posten said:
I'm not nearly as harsh on 8 as Gruber is here:

http://daringfireball.net/2011/06/windows_8_fundamentally_flawed


But.... I really wish Microsoft would stick a line in the sand and start fresh on the desktop sometimes.

Start with Security and Permissions baked into the OS from the ground up. Pick Single User or MultiUser focused and go with it. Pick Touch or Mouse n. Keyboard as the primary input and make it exceptionally intuitive. The price of being all things to everyone is eternal mess.


And i forgot who wrote it this morning but I agree with it: It's not just that Microsoft doesn't understand Apple it's that they fundamentally don't agree and can't agree based upon the commitments they have made that they are not willing to back down on. What I've seen of 8 it looks like GREAT lipstick, but it's still lipstick.


I'll probably stick with 7 for my game boxes as long as I can.
I think in some ways, MS is married to the past in a way that Apple isn't. I don't know if they CAN break from that. The risk vs. reward just isn't there. I mean, it sounds convenient, but there are huge, major applications and supporters that would just as well support a Windows 2000 refresh as compared to a brand new from the ground up core. Those are the people that MS can't really lose, either, because those are multi-million dollar contract agreements that they have to uphold. It would be.. let's say, difficult for them to go to Gold and Platinum level partners like Sage and say "this is how it is". It was easy for Apple - they did it when OSX transitioned. And a lot followed along. But have you see ACT for a Mac lately? Nope. In fact, I can't even find a good PM for the Mac that will handle anything like it. Seen MAS or a multi-level accounting system? Nope, they split. And those areas ceded to Microsoft. Now Microsoft has all of those clients, huge swaths of companies that support those apps that helps them stand out. If they were to tomorrow say "we're abandoning backward compatibility to do something different" they would be toast. In a choice between Microsoft Next Gen OS 1.0 and Apple 10.7 a 7th gen take on an established OS, which way do you think the public would go? The public sticks with MS because of the vast volumes of software and some software that just doesn't exist elsewhere. MS isn't foolish, they realize that. It's both a boon and a bane to them. It keeps them tons of users with some headaches that go along with it. But in order for MS to do what you're thinking Sam, they'd almost have to run two completely seperate ecospheres at once. They've done that - once before, when Windows 98 transitioned and Windows NT became Windows 2000. Two entirely separate platforms. To do that today for them would be a major undertaking. Would it be possible? Yes. And it might be the right thing to do again. But the risk factor of failure there is very high; you have to remember when OS/2 started, that was them and IBM in a co-op agreement. That initiative tanked like a turkey. And yet, I still have clients who are 100% committed to OS/2 and -cannot- change. That's for an OS that died years ago with minimal market penetration. Now imagine a platform with over a billion user penetration and over 2 billion licenses sold, not counting pirated copies over the last decade. A monumental shift of "we're going to blow it up"... I think they may have thought about it, but if MS did that, it would take monumental balls to believe they could pull it off.
 

Sam Posten

Moderator
Premium
HW Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 30, 1997
Messages
32,438
Location
Aberdeen, MD & Navesink, NJ
Real Name
Sam Posten
I understand. They had the chance with Windows NT and blew it. I think a parallel development ala iOS and OSX could work tho, they'd just have to do EOL support on the last legacy OS for a loooong time.


Here's some GREAT observations why this can't be as cut and dried as MS is making it out to be WRT ARM, and it also brings up the clean break angle too:

http://getwired.com/2011/06/02/windows-8-crossing-the-chasm/
 

mattCR

Reviewer
HW Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2005
Messages
10,897
Location
Lee Summit, Missouri
Real Name
Matt
Yeah, a really long time. I think though they see it this way: Google is working non-stop to come up with one platform that goes from phone to table to desktop, meaning developers develop once and get all platforms. Them dividing and having two different ecosystems is on one end probably productive, on the other end, it would sever their largest user base from the new, and they would compete as an upstart with no real advantages.


Only one company in the history of PCs has done that and succeeded.. and they almost didn't (that being Apple). I mean, it's easy for people to say "Apple abandoned the past!" But they did it when OS9 was at the nadir, an absolute black pit, and they did so at the same time they were deep in debt and they through a complete hail mary. Any other painting of that situation is laughable for those that remember. I walked into the Apple campus in 1997, with a friend who had been employed there, and it felt like death, I mean, people were prepping their resumes, everyone hated each other, there was a huge fight about control.. Give credit to Jobs for changing all of that big credit. But he had to make a huge change or else their company was done with.


On the other hand, Windows 7 is the fastest selling OS MS has ever had, they've moved a billion (billion) copies, they have global licensees and a HUGE developer base that outflanks anything out there in the market. Their thought is: if we offer up one development platform and we tell people: develop X (in this case, Silverlight6) and it'll run on: WP7, XBOX360-2nd gen, tablet, desktop as the same setup, then they feel as though they can get a huge instant bounce to the market space.


Their endorsement of sled and capture controls, via Ultraviolet as well as MCX allow them to create a real "TV on the go".. thing HBO Go app is cool on your iPad? Pick up a tablet (you can do this with Remote Potato now on iPad, but imagine a bit slicker) and grab hold of your ATT/Surewest or home-built Windows MCE and watch live TV off your cable feed anywhere that you have a net connection. Made some progress on game X? Fine. Pick up the same game on your second gen XBOX and start from there. Etc.


I don't know if this strategy will work out or be an epic failure, but it's a lot more then "lipstick". The core conversion and application portability base are nothing that is seen anywhere else in any other platform right now.

The article you link is also basically wrong. In fact, it's almost entirely wrong ;) I can say this from.. a point of know-how. The display that they showed in Tapei was to show that it would run currently existing and older apps; they showed current Office2010. Which isn't a new product. But in fact, there already -IS- a touch version of MS Office in a format of Office 365 betas, which they don't even mention. MS showing Office as an example of running legacy popular apps doesn't mean that there will never be a new version of office that supports that platform. The author in your link goes off on that and yet, he's just wrong. It makes for a great write up, but it would be like me saying "Windows 7 runs MS Office 97. What trash!" Well, it does, but it also runs Office 2010.

That's the problem with the net, people blog about things with base knowledge but they just make assertions "they'll get warmed over Office 2010" Uh, have you been to MS's website in the last six months on the multiple formats of Office365 enrollment betas?!?!?!


Originally Posted by Sam Posten

I understand. They had the chance with Windows NT and blew it. I think a parallel development ala iOS and OSX could work tho, they'd just have to do EOL support on the last legacy OS for a loooong time.


Here's some GREAT observations why this can't be as cut and dried as MS is making it out to be WRT ARM, and it also brings up the clean break angle too:

http://getwired.com/2011/06/02/windows-8-crossing-the-chasm/
 

Sam Posten

Moderator
Premium
HW Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 30, 1997
Messages
32,438
Location
Aberdeen, MD & Navesink, NJ
Real Name
Sam Posten
Pssst, Google is doing this now, a little OS you may have heard about called Chrome! =) Horses for courses.


Any my lipstick comment was mostly aimed at the fact that they are going to have the same terrible security considerations under the hood.

http://allthingsd.com/20110601/sorry-windows-8-may-look-different-but-it-will-need-the-same-security-software/


Until you fundamentally change the nature of Windows handling user permissions that's not going to change. One way to fix that is the unix way. Another is the iOS way of not even letting users think much about the concept of files other than user data files. There are other mechanisms. But sticking with the legacy here from Win32 and back is not going to fix the win malware ecosystem.
 

DaveF

Moderator
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2001
Messages
27,262
Location
Catfisch Cinema
Real Name
Dave
Originally Posted by mattCR


I looked at it as the reverse. The reality is, there are too many applications that will never be touch/tablet type friendly. Just like Linux allows for loading multiple shells based on use, if they can have it flip shells, there is nothing wrong with that (IMHO) and it could allow for great backwards compatibility while offering a different UI. It's a bit like the Windows Media Center UI, etc. I don't think they have a "touch that falls back to conventional" In fact, the way it works from all the videos I've seen is that it prompts you that an application is "legacy" and you can chose to switch shells or not.

I must admit I quit watching about 1:30 when, during the demo, he went to select a photo and the system dumped out of the WP7 interface to a WinXP file browser.
That seems to promise a computing experience unsatisfying on all platforms, touch and traditional. Contrast to Apple who fully appreciates what you argue, and has two OSs for two purposes ("post-PC" and "trucks" as Jobs has said). MS may well make billions. They've done well enough with the broadly installed but badly designed user experience. But a great pity that they've got something that looks potentially great--Apple great--and instead of maximizing it, they'll instead shackle it with 20 years Windows deadweight.
 

mattCR

Reviewer
HW Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2005
Messages
10,897
Location
Lee Summit, Missouri
Real Name
Matt
Yep, I know, I think the google part is exactly what I was saying above. Without going into details, let me just say: AllThingsD is leaping to a conclusion based on a single sentence comment. And they are wrong. I shouldn't say 100% wrong, but let's just say.. wrong. Their assessment of "it's the same security under the hood" is really wrong. I can't get into that, but let's just say, yeah, not correct.

Originally Posted by Sam Posten

Pssst, Google is doing this now, a little OS you may have heard about called Chrome! =) Horses for courses.


Any my lipstick comment was mostly aimed at the fact that they are going to have the same terrible security considerations under the hood.

http://allthingsd.com/20110601/sorry-windows-8-may-look-different-but-it-will-need-the-same-security-software/


Until you fundamentally change the nature of Windows handling user permissions that's not going to change. One way to fix that is the unix way. Another is the iOS way of not even letting users think much about the concept of files other than user data files. There are other mechanisms. But sticking with the legacy here from Win32 and back is not going to fix the win malware ecosystem.
 

mattCR

Reviewer
HW Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2005
Messages
10,897
Location
Lee Summit, Missouri
Real Name
Matt
Originally Posted by DaveF




I must admit I quit watching about 1:30 when, during the demo, he went to select a photo and the system dumped out of the WP7 interface to a WinXP file browser.
That seems to promise a computing experience unsatisfying on all platforms, touch and traditional. Contrast to Apple who fully appreciates what you argue, and has two OSs for two purposes ("post-PC" and "trucks" as Jobs has said). MS may well make billions. They've done well enough with the broadly installed but badly designed user experience. But a great pity that they've got something that looks potentially great--Apple great--and instead of maximizing it, they'll instead shackle it with 20 years Windows deadweight.


I'd have to look at the video when he does that. Literally, if you want to look at a photo or do anything, there is never a need to leave metro. You could change a size, import, edit, etc. a video or a photo without ever leaving the Metro shell. I think people are far to tied to thinking about this like "it's an interface on a shell" when it's far more like a Linux install that allows you to flip between X and say, KDE.
 

DaveF

Moderator
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2001
Messages
27,262
Location
Catfisch Cinema
Real Name
Dave
Originally Posted by mattCR

Yeah, a really long time. I think though they see it this way: Google is working non-stop to come up with one platform that goes from phone to table to desktop, meaning developers develop once and get all platforms. Them dividing and having two different ecosystems is on one end probably productive, on the other end, it would sever their largest user base from the new, and they would compete as an upstart with no real advantages.

Then they see it wrong. Google has at least four platforms: Google Website (any browser), Chrome Browser, Chrome OS, Android OS. Apple too has partitioned the computing world between OS X and iOS.


Microsoft must see what's happening and are institutionally unwilling to believe in this reality or to tackle it? It's suggested by insistence of calling their new breakout "Zune" platform "Windows" Phone. But it's Microsoft so there must be "Windows" somewhere.
 

mattCR

Reviewer
HW Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2005
Messages
10,897
Location
Lee Summit, Missouri
Real Name
Matt
Originally Posted by DaveF , equal in status to the OS/2 and POSIX subsystems[/b] - integrated into the operating system from a user point-of-view, but self-contained from a code point-of-view. While Win32 was always supposed to be such a self-contained subsystem, it grew like weeds over the years, causing it to become intertwined with other parts of the operating system. MinWin solved this.

This way, Microsoft has managed to finally solve the backwards compatibility conundrum, in quite the elegant way, code-wise. It took the multi-year MinWin project to get there, but it's finally here: all the legacy code in Windows has been isolated, and can be removed if necessary. It will be installed by default in Windows 8, but I'm fairly sure it will be an optional installation by the time Windows 9 arrives.


To better understand, this sorts it out... you can do everything from a tile base if you want; but you can "launch" the old UI, just as a shell if you want to look at it this other way:





It's not "Running in the background all the time" It's not running at all, unless you specifically ask for it. The reference to POSIX and OS2 are valid; as interpretters. But in experience, a bird tells me, it is far more like launching a seperate shell in linux. Going from Gnome to KDE doesn't mean your files change or your information disappears; it just provides you a completely different way of looking at the same thing, and a user can chose what they prefer. If you notice, he can grab everything about the files, photos, etc. within the Win8 shell (3:43), but if he CHOSES, he can launch the legacy subsystem and get at it that way to. Users choice.


The fact is, Microsoft does see the other method as "wrong" =for them=. It's because it would be hard for them not to. Sam points out "they should just provide Legacy Support" using this method, of a completely seperate subsystem is the same way that OS/2, POSIX and others were handled for years. The concern w/r/t Security is also diminished because as a completely compartmentalized subsystem, I'm told, those services which are most prone to attack are not even running unless a user wants them, making a far different target.


But providing that sub system for backwards compatibility is an imperative for them. If they were to tomorrow come out with Windows8 and say "all of your old Windows apps will not work" they might as well shut the doors.
 

DaveF

Moderator
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2001
Messages
27,262
Location
Catfisch Cinema
Real Name
Dave
Originally Posted by mattCR

I don'[t know Dave. They see what I ssee. Google has (right now) four platforms. And they are desperately trying to unify them to one common base.

How so? Android and Chrome appear to separate teams, independently managed, effectively firewalled. I could have missed it, but I've not seen the signs that Android and Chrome are being unified system.


Apple is learning lessons and cross-pollinating between iOS and OS X, but they are still clearly different systems optimized for their different platforms and interfaces (especially low-power & touch and high-power and indirect interaction).


Products I've seen meant to span multiple design and usage philosophies fail to wholly succeed at any of them. How will MS, with a history of failing to succeed at even a single design philosophy, accomplish this split-mind design? At best, it will be like Windows, make billions and be second rate experience. At worst, they continue to fall further behind in this Third Computing Age (because the iPad was a watershed like the Apple II and the Mac).
 

mattCR

Reviewer
HW Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2005
Messages
10,897
Location
Lee Summit, Missouri
Real Name
Matt
Originally Posted by DaveF


Google is working to unify it's application base across all tablets and phones, and they want to unify the app development and portability tools into one SDK as well.


Apple is also proposing this with a unified SDK that will allow easy portability through OS/iOS/etc. which is why they've already made the pre-announcement that iOS5 won't work on the 3GS, it'll take a iPhone4 and on to work, in order to help insure this application cross compatibility base, and apps will start being flagged for it.


That's the direction that MS sees.. develop once, recompile for the end point. But how this plays out is going to be yet to be seen.



We also have to realize, MS isn't worried about winning over tons of Apple users. I mean, Apple may lead in the mindshare, but they still make up less then 10% of the total market. MS has a much bigger task in trying to preserve the 86% of the audience that already use and run their OS and keeping them on board with them. Microsoft has plenty of things that haven't gone their way, but the OS front isn't it.. Windows 7 OS adoption has been faster then anything they have ever shipped, and their quarter by quarter shows that they continue to gain traction with it. That's good for them, but it also means it's hard for them to step back from a standard of "we're failing" and go with something else. If you sell a billion+ widgets and it works, then you might rethink other things, but you don't rethink the one thing that seems to be bringing in all your cash. There was another company that did try that tact once: New Coke. I think Microsoft would look at the idea of a complete scrap as a "New Coke" waiting to happen.


But moving the backward compatibility to a loadable/unloadable subsystem, like OS2 or POSIX back in the day is the best way to make a clean break with a smaller base kernel and retain compatibility.
 

DaveF

Moderator
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2001
Messages
27,262
Location
Catfisch Cinema
Real Name
Dave
Originally Posted by mattCR

That's about maintaining a coherent Android OS; "unifying" the disparate mobile phone and tablet versions, as Apple has accomplished with iOS. There's nothing about unifying ChromeOS into Android. Google is pursuing a multiple OS strategy. So is Apple.


In contrast, MS is creating the the Neopolitan ice-cream flavor OS. It does everything always: all iPad-like touch and all Windows-like KVM, letting the user seamlessly toggle between them, use both always on any hardware. So far, Apple and Google and HP have different OSs for different platforms and purposes. iOS will not flip over to reveal an OS X Finder; nor will OS X Finder turn itself inside out into a low-powered, battery-minded system with the click of the mouse.


Rather than trying to make the best Windows 8 for the desktop (and legacy and corporate customers) and the best Touch OS for the unique demands of mobile devices, they're trying to make it do all things always on everything. I predict the result will not be unified awesomeness but disjointed mediocrity.
 

mattCR

Reviewer
HW Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2005
Messages
10,897
Location
Lee Summit, Missouri
Real Name
Matt
DaveF said:
That's about maintaining a coherent Android OS; "unifying" the disparate mobile phone and tablet versions, as Apple has accomplished with iOS. There's nothing about unifying ChromeOS into Android. Google is pursuing a multiple OS strategy. So is Apple.

 

In contrast, MS is creating the the Neopolitan ice-cream flavor OS. It does everything always: all iPad-like touch and all Windows-like KVM, letting the user seamlessly toggle between them, use both always on any hardware. So far, Apple and Google and HP have different OSs for different platforms and purposes. iOS will not flip over to reveal an OS X Finder; nor will OS X Finder turn itself inside out into a low-powered, battery-minded system with the click of the mouse.

 

Rather than trying to make the best Windows 8 for the desktop (and legacy and corporate customers) and the best Touch OS for the unique demands of mobile devices, they're trying to make it do all things always on everything. I predict the result will not be unified awesomeness but disjointed mediocrity.
*shrug* We'll have to see how it plays out. But your analysis with regards to Apple and Google is not the way that I see it at all. Realize, with the MacApp Store, and Google now pushing their Android marketplace, and Adobe pushing their software, all of them are trying to come up with a "develop once, distribute many" system. Ie, develop an app for X and distribute it in multiple places. Now, it's going to be interesting to see if MS can make it work. And I have no doubt there will be a lot of people who say "it can't work". But I see it as far more like Linux. I will make no bones about it, the most well-constructed OS on the market, right now, as far as I'm concerned from an OS level is Ubuntu. It's not even close. I find myself in Windows7 more because most of the applications I need to use on a daily basis are Windows. But I respect the way Ubuntu works in a major way. The lessons of Ubuntu are really the kind of thing that I look for going forward; Sandboxing applications; seperate shells depending on usage, unique user identifiers, package level controls. But it's one coherent OS, no matter where you install it.. or how. IF MinWin works as it should, then MS takes a big step closer on that front. They will have an OS that slides from one platform to the other and changes shells just as Ubuntu does. If it works as their techblogs point out, then complete sandboxing of shells, and providing them as application level rather then core components. I've been a contributor and donator to Mandriva, and I really like the direction of that project as well, and still participate there to some extent. It's hard for me to point to an OS where I can't think of anything really positive about it or to find the direction I think they are going. But I always look for people to do things differently, rather then "it's the same as X" If they were all close to the same, what a losing experience for the end user... because I find it hard to believe that everyone likes the same thing. I've kind of said this in the mobile platform. Right now, I have a Xoom, an iPad2, and a Playbook. I really like the iPad2, it's about as close as it gets (right now) to where I think the tablet experience should be. The Playbook offers a few features I really like and I like the direction of it. The Xoom is a unit I really dislike, but I get where google is going; but for me, it's the wrong direction. Now, I could understand why some would take the Xoom. Or the iPad2. or the Playbook. Some redeeming value in all of those ideas. Or phones. It's why despite the ecosystem, I stick with Blackberry, because frankly I haven't found any with a keyboard that I like. I've tried the touch screens. My wife has an iPhone4, and I have one that sits in a drawer used as just an iPod now. I've tried the GalaxyS, and more recently the Infuse4G. Things I liked about them, but I couldn't pull the trigger because for me they weren't what I needed. It's the same reason why I dumped the Blackberry Torch and stuck with my 9700 bold. To me, the feature was: keyboard. I just haven't found anything that gets around that. (and to point this out: try typing one handed on any of these touch screen smart phones with the phone at your side, not looking at it while you talk to someone on a golf course and at the same time poke fun of him in email you're sending from your phone.. that's a priceless feature, right there). I guess you could say, I'm not married to any of the concepts; we have a Macbook in the house (my wife's) and several PCs, there are things I enjoy about all of the concepts.. and some things I dislike about all of them. I haven't come up with anything that I consider perfect. If Ubuntu had the app base of Windows, that would probably be it, but it isn't there. How MS pulls this off will be interesting. Frankly, I'd concur with you; in a desktop OS, I never want a touch screen. Last thing I want is any fingerprints on my 27" desktop LCD. But for my media center, some of the key functionality that they are getting at is exactly what I'm after, the ability to sled a media center interface for live TV options onto a tablets, etc.... I do that now with remote potato on the iPad2, but having that kind of options native would be nice. I also get that as a development platform, having a way to rope in second gen XBOX360(2) is going to be interesting. I think what's great is that for the consumer, the more competition there is, the better. Because I think everyone can find something they like and stick with it. That's why I kind of laugh off the engadget level "they are DOOMED" responses to any company that throws out something the commenters don't like. Some things are. But quite a bit of what people dislike as "not cool" are the kind of things that find a serious market because they do exactly what that user wants ;)
 

DaveF

Moderator
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2001
Messages
27,262
Location
Catfisch Cinema
Real Name
Dave
[EDIT: scrapped original post]






Quote: Originally Posted by mattCR


But MS has a burden that say, Apple or Google don't. They have billions of users and developers on a platform that they can't really abandon. Nor do they want to. There are several applications that have pretty well stuck through them and have massive user bases they want to hold onto, and those companies aren't looking at Apple or Google or anywhere else and saying "let's redo our application". It just isn't happening.



That's the crux: How is MS going to build a modern, touch / tablet system while requiring it to be compatible with 15 years of Windows legacy?
 

mattCR

Reviewer
HW Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2005
Messages
10,897
Location
Lee Summit, Missouri
Real Name
Matt
Originally Posted by DaveF

[EDIT: scrapped original post]






That's the crux: How is MS going to build a modern, touch / tablet system while requiring it to be compatible with 15 years of Windows legacy?




I think this is where you make things would in a loadable and unloadable subsystem. The same way POSIX worked under Windows until Server2003R2. Or OS/2 apps for a while. I think the end goal is: if everything is in an entirely different sandbox, then you can manage everything the past needs without it ever making any real changes in the future of what you're doing. It's the same method that Linux took to enable supports for traditional elements, while moving on.
 

Sam Posten

Moderator
Premium
HW Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 30, 1997
Messages
32,438
Location
Aberdeen, MD & Navesink, NJ
Real Name
Sam Posten
Originally Posted by DaveF
That's the crux: How is MS going to build a modern, touch / tablet system while requiring it to be compatible with 15 years of Windows legacy?





The same way Apple did. In parallel.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum Sponsors

Forum statistics

Threads
352,562
Messages
4,989,347
Members
143,286
Latest member
emking
Recent bookmarks
0
Top