Microsoft Details Windows 8 for ARM

MrSeb writes "In an 8,000-word treatise, Steven Sinofksy himself has taken up pen and paper to describe Windows 8 on ARM (WOA) in great detail. There's a lot of good stuff in there, but one point is particularly troubling. Quoting Sinofsky: 'WOA does not support running, emulating, or porting existing x86/64 desktop apps. Code that uses only system or OS services from WinRT can be used within an app and distributed through the Windows Store for both WOA and x86/64. Consumers obtain all [WOA] software, including device drivers, through the Windows Store and Microsoft Update or Windows Update.' It's hard to under-emphasize just how huge a change that is. It's one thing to say that ARM CPUs won't support x86 emulation; something else entirely to split software delivery and installation. Up until now, one of the biggest differences between desktop and mobile operating systems has been the ability to install software. It's true that Microsoft's decision to wall off unapproved software installation is similar to the approach of Android and iOS — but iOS isn't the same thing as OS X. Combining both of these decisions under the 'Windows' brand could be disastrous, not because Microsoft is evil, but because it creates two entirely different user experiences on the basis of which ISA your CPU supports."

Comments

Please,

[SuricouRaven]

May we have the old Borg icon back for this story?

Re:Please,

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, the Borg only operates on x86/64 machines

Re:Please,

[Gideon Wells]

Why? So far t his is just the ARM version. It sounds more like they just are going the cheap route, and not fulling integrating the ARM version with their Intel version.

Basically to my thinking:
A) Other Win8 versions have these features, then this is laziness. No borg icon warrented.
B) All Win8 versions lack these features (then why the big deal about the ARM version?), then this is a closing of the walls intentionally for a purpose. Borg icon deserved.

Re:Please,

[sakdoctor]

I say no borg icon, because Microsoft is irrelevant.

Re:Please,

[Anonymous Coward]

no, we should have a monkey throwing chairs instead.

Re:Please,

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right, the world runs* on OSX, cheap aluminum Foxconn crap is perfectly suited to everyone's needs.

*Technically, the world runs on Linux and Sun Microsystems, but the rest of the world is definitely Windows-based.

Re:Please,

[Sponge Bath]

...this is laziness. No borg icon warrented.

Maybe a slacker borg with an arm replaced by a bong: "Dude, where's my cube?"

Re:Please,

[sgt scrub]

This is a feel sorry for Windows developers article not a Microsoft is screwing people article. Not to say Microsoft developers aren't people. When Microsoft's ARM products come out locked down to only allow Windows to be installed I'm sure /. will post that article with the borge icon.

Re:Please,

[StuartHankins]

Much like a chicken after the axe has fallen, the body is still temporarily alive but the brain is dead. Just give it a minute to catch up to reality.

Re:Please,

[Anonymous Coward]

May we have the old Borg icon back for this story?

No, the old borg icon had the Bill Gates face, a guy that since then has saved millons of lives. He deserve a better icon.

Re:Please,

[poetmatt]

Technically, all of the world runs on linux and not sun - why the misleading? This actually hasn't changed very much - linux was always on the backend, and now it's simply surging for the end users too.

Suns' engineers have confirmed that android is not java - yet android and not ios is heading towards the largest marketshare in the world (see india custom tablet for example). Windows has been on a gigantic decline but has pushed hard to not have studies that mix mobile and desktop OS marketshare as windows is heading towards irrelevant whereas ios will remain relevant.

Re:Please,

[Anonymous Coward]

Talking about Linux on desktop again, are we.

Re:Please,

[JohnnyLocust]

Much like a chicken after the axe has fallen, the body is still temporarily alive but the brain is dead. Just give it a minute to catch up to reality.

The same could have easily been said of Apple in the 90s. I think we can all agree that chicken stitched a new and improved head back on.

Re:Please,

[TheRaven64]

Apple in the '90s got Steve Jobs, who had a vision of what computing should be, a big enough ego to be convinced that everyone should agree with him, and a reality distortion field to ensure that they did. Microsoft has... monkeyboy.

Re:Please,

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Why? So far t his is just the ARM version. It sounds more like they just are going the cheap route, and not fulling integrating the ARM version with their Intel version.

Basically to my thinking: A) Other Win8 versions have these features, then this is laziness. No borg icon warrented. B) All Win8 versions lack these features (then why the big deal about the ARM version?), then this is a closing of the walls intentionally for a purpose. Borg icon deserved.

There is another possibility: Microsoft has massive legacy commitments. Practically all the world's boring corporate stuff that isn't old, specialized, or hip, enough to be running on some sort of intimidating big iron or linux/web/cloud/thingamawhatsit. Most of that software is absolute dreck, and rather boring, but much of it is also quite critical to a variety of high value operations and impossible or uneconomic to port or even modify very much. For this reason, Microsoft's walled-garden options on x86/64 are pretty minimal. Architecturally they could roll it out tomorrow(Software Restriction Policies are basically that, but under the control of your domain admin); but the customers that matter would scream like nobody's business.

However, since there isn't any legacy Windows software or legacy Windows device drivers, on ARM, since it has never run on ARM before, there is no legacy market to worry about. Microsoft has a free hand, more or less. As with the xbox, the other recent situation where MS started clean, without legacy impediments, they apparently see a walled garden as their best option.

It remains to be seen how long the momentum of more-or-less-open x86 IBM compatibles will carry them into the future; but so long as the legacy/in-house/custom demand is there, they'll be hard to kill entirely. However, I'd say that it is "outlook not so good" for open platforms any time somebody starts a new one from scratch...

Re:Please,

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's see .. he made all your money disappear in legally shady ways and is using it to try to make himself look better.

So... how do you picture someone with an ego the size of Jupiter...

Re:Please,

[justforgetme]

LoL, wish I had mod points!

Re:Please,

[Niomosy]

I picture that someone as Steve Jobs on a day where he's feeling extremely benevolent.

Re:Please,

[DickBreath]

The problem with Microsoft's new walled garden is that they have an already entrenched walled garden competitor: iOS.

They also have an entrenched open competitor: Android.

Windows on ARM is just Microsoft's PS/2 like attempt to recreate its monopoly on the new platform where all the excitement and momentum already is. It's not that Microsoft's existing Windows platform doesn't also have momentum, but that is already in a very long slow decline and Microsoft knows it. (I hope they know it, since the decline of PC sales and thus Windows sales was in their quarterly report.)

Re:Please,

[hairyfeet]

Actually I have a better choice, one that fits their boneheaded moves of late. Picture this, Steve Ballmer with his tongue out wearing an "I Heart Apple!" beanie, since every damned thing that monkey has done has been a "me too! oh oh me too!" for at least the past five years. lets look at this shall we? Hmmm...locked down OS, App store, making everything go through corporate....where have I see this before? Could it be...I don't know....iPad?

For all those zealots that think I'm some sort of "M$ Ninja" being paid to sell MSFT crap let me blow their perception bubbles apart...Windows 8 is gonna be the biggest flop since Bob, not even Vista failed as badly as Win 8 is gonna fail, its a touchscreen desktop when less than 0.2% of the world's desktop and laptops are actually being sold with touchscreens, and when a 17 inch touchscreen is $300 and a 25 inch widescreen monitor is $150 that isn't gonna change between now and release in Oct, and NOBODY is gonna want a Windows 8 ARM device that looks like Windows but doesn't actually run Windows programs! All this is is the exact opposite of what they have tried and failed with for a decade. remember how they made WinMo look like XP, right down to the start button? remember how it flopped? Well now they are just gonna take the WinPhone UI and slap it on the desktop! How fricking stupid can you get, did Apple slap iOS onto the Mac? NO of course not. Why? Because the devices have completely different inputs therefor requiring completely different UIs! this is OS 101 stuff people!

So fear not FOSS lovers, this isn't the 90s and a year after Win 8 launch you'll be able to find this crap in the bargain bin right next to the Zune and kin and Vista boxes in the "shit nobody wants even when its cheap" section. I sell to normal people, the 99% of the population that aren't geeks or power users, just average folks. So far i've shown Win 8 to nearly 200 people and do you know how many positives I've gotten? ZERO. The closest i got to a positive was this exchange: Why that looks like a nice cell phone, is that Android? i heard its really nice...what do you mean its Windows? Windows what? Why that is just stupid! Why would I want a cell phone on my computer?" and out of the mouth of Ms Pipkin comes wisdom. Everyone who sees it thinks its a cell phone and everyone who tries it quickly becomes frustrated because without a touchscreen its about as fun as trying to control your phone using nothing but a keyboard.

so no SuricouRaven we don't need the Borg back, the Borg were actually scary. what we need is an icon showing Ballmer for what he is, a biog fricking clown of a CO with an Apple fetish. Ironic that every time i put Ballmer spellcheck wants to correct it to ballgirl, as that pretty much is what he is, someone chasing after the balls Apple hits.

Re:Please,

[DarwinSurvivor]

with money "stolen" from the government through tax evasion and could have been spent on saving lives (hospitals, etc) decades earlier.

Re:Please,

[Anthony Mouse]

It remains to be seen how long the momentum of more-or-less-open x86 IBM compatibles will carry them into the future; but so long as the legacy/in-house/custom demand is there, they'll be hard to kill entirely. However, I'd say that it is "outlook not so good" for open platforms any time somebody starts a new one from scratch...

I don't think the in-house and custom software is going to save anything, because the large majority of new business applications have the application itself running in the data center and the users access it through a web interface. And legacy software is replaced by new stuff the more time passes.

But I don't think the future is as bleak as all that, for different reasons. The largest impetus for closed platforms comes from the wireless carriers who want to make sure you aren't doing anything as unscrupulous as making a VOIP phone call over WiFi without paying them for minutes, and who subsidize your phone and in so doing become the "customer" of the device who gets to decide how open it is.

Here's the thing: I expect that inside of five years, flip phones are going to be almost completely dead. Tomorrow's top end Android handsets will still be ~$500, but today's will be $50. Some handset maker who still has a tooled factory churning out "obsolete" phones will realize that with nothing more than a software patch, they can sell them retail as WiFi-only devices that still make phone calls and browse the 'net as long as you're at work, at home, at school or anywhere else that has WiFi. The poorest customers will quickly realize that $50 or $100 once is much less expensive than $50/month indefinitely, even if it means they can't make calls in their cars, and many will do that. The carriers will then realize they're getting $0/month from these customers and that if they offered a cheap bring-your-own-device plan, they could be making $20 or $30/month from customers who by and large don't actually tax the cellular network because they use WiFi 90% of the time, and a big chunk of those people will pay that so their phones will work in their cars etc. And so will a big chunk of the people who had been buying subsidized phones, who realize that $500 once + $30/month is a lot cheaper than $200 once + $100/month. (The savings for everyone comes from the fact that you're taking a massive load off of the cell towers and putting it on DSL and cable lines where adding bandwidth doesn't require outbidding everyone else for finite wireless spectrum.)

With any luck that will be the end of carrier device subsidies and with it the end of locked boot loaders etc. Even the carriers seem to be looking for a way out of subsidizing premium devices for most of their customers. But do that and you open the door back up for innovation: Once people no longer need carrier approval to sell Android and other Linux-based devices that work away from home, you have the possibility of things like the Spark tablet or whatever Canonical feels like producing start to take hold, which can easily be made to run both Android apps and Linux native apps, and you can see the possibility of an open platform gaining a sigificant foothold. Not to mention whatever products come out of Google buying Motorola Mobility.

If that happens then Microsoft will have to decide whether to go the Apple route and try to keep their ARM platform closed, or stick with their traditional forte and open it up. And I kind of feel like there isn't any room in the market for more than one Apple.

Re:Please,

[s73v3r]

While that may be true, he still got that money in incredibly shady ways.

His new efforts should be praised, but they don't necessarily erase what he's done in the past.

Re:Please,

[SuricouRaven]

Entrenched *semi*-open competitor. Android is a lot more open than iOS, but not as open as your typical desktop OS - you still need to exploit a security hole of some kind to get root access, and device manufacturers are free to add in their own anti-tamper measures. Which they often do.

Re:Please,

[SuricouRaven]

From Apple? That's expensive aluminium Foxconn crap. You may loathe Apple for their business practices, and rightly so, but they do make good quality hardware. And I'd hope so too, considering what they charge for it.

Re:Please,

[tunapez]

Apple in the '90s got Steve Jobs and a boatload of cash from Microsoft & Monkey Boy.

FTFY

Re:Please,

[UnknownSoldier]

Ha! Best one line summary of the differences between Apple and Microsoft I've read in a while.

Mod up!

I've coined these two, but like your succinct version.

Subject: Viewing Tablets
Microsoft: "Problem! This is going to cannibalize our Desktop/Windows sales! We are cutting into existing markets!"
Apple: "Opportunity! This is going to augment our Desktop/Mac sales! We can grow into new markets!"

or

Microsoft is a software company that doesn't understand hardware
Sony is a hardware company that doesn't understand software
Apple understands hardware + software + user experience

Re:Please,

[shutdown -p now]

However, since there isn't any legacy Windows software or legacy Windows device drivers, on ARM, since it has never run on ARM before, there is no legacy market to worry about. Microsoft has a free hand, more or less. As with the xbox, the other recent situation where MS started clean, without legacy impediments, they apparently see a walled garden as their best option

In addition to that, "walled garden" has already become a de facto standard for ARM-based "consumer devices" - see iPhone and iPad. Apple bore the brunt of pushing this through onto everyone, but now that it's done, and consumers have been trained to accept it, everybody else can and does cash in.

Re:Please,

[Anonymous Coward]

But you dont't root to: 1. install any application you want (.apk), 2. access the filesystem. Basically the only reason why you would root an android device is to install a new ROM.

Re:Please,

[AmiMoJo]

I'm not a big MS fan, having to deal with their development stuff every day, but this rant is just stupid...

Win 8 is gonna fail, its a touchscreen desktop

You don't know a lot about Windows 8, do you? The touch screen front end is optional, the traditional mouse/keyboard operated desktop is still there. Desktop apps will look the same as they always did, operate the same way they always did. It is just that now the same core OS can also have a fully touch interface for mobile devices on top, kinda like how iOS is the same core OS as MacOS but with a touch interface for mobile devices on top and the desktop stuff ripped out.

NOBODY is gonna want a Windows 8 ARM device that looks like Windows but doesn't actually run Windows programs!

You mean like how iOS looks like MacOS but doesn't run MacOS programs? I think people can understand that just because something looks similar to something else from the same company does not mean they are exactly the same. The Metro UI is about as different from the Windows desktop as the iOS home screen is from the MacOS desktop.

remember how they made WinMo look like XP, right down to the start button? remember how it flopped?

It didn't flop, there were loads of devices that ran it. The majority of PDAs for a start. Anyway, it is clear that MS has learned how to do a reasonable mobile OS because, despite being a bit of a flop, Windows Phone 7 is actually OK as an OS. The UI works reasonably well, it isn't like previous versions that were a desktop OS shoehorned onto a mobile device. It seems reasonable to expect the Metro stuff in Windows 8 to be at least competent.

So far i've shown Win 8 to nearly 200 people and do you know how many positives I've gotten? ZERO.

I'm sure that had nothing to do with you ranting about how crap it was at the same time.

"Why would I want a cell phone on my computer?"

Actually running mobile/tablet apps on a desktop is an often requested feature. Particularly with tablets people are actually able to do some useful work on them and can't understand why the app authors don't do a desktop version. MS has found a way to give them that with little effort on the part of the developer (just design the UI so that it can work with a mouse as well as a finger).

Re:Please,

[Anonymous Coward]

android and not ios is heading towards the largest marketshare in the world (see india custom tablet for example).

Nah, it just isn't, in fact when apple releases a device it always clobbers android sales.

Windows has been on a gigantic decline

200 million iOS devices sold since 2007, 200 million android devices activated since the project began, even if you went to the ridiculous point of doubling that for devices that for whatever reason aren't activated through google and you still fall short of the approximately 650 million Windows 7 licenses sold since late 2009, a much shorter timespan than the lives of iOS and Android.

but has pushed hard to not have studies that mix mobile and desktop OS marketshare as windows is heading towards irrelevant whereas ios will remain relevant.

Nope and the reason why is that most people aren't replacing PCs with tablets and smartphones, they are augmenting PCs with tablets and smartphones. Otherwise we would see a marked decline in Windows sales - corresponding to a rise in mobile device sales - which quite simply is not happening.

Re:Please,

[IHateEverybody]

As far as classic or even modern day "robber barons" go, Bill Gates isn't so bad. Certainly Rockefeller's old Standard Oil monopoly ruled the oil industry with a far more iron grip and crushed its competitors more ruthlessly than Bill Gates' Microsoft ever did. And I think I could even argue that Steve Jobs' legacy is probably tarnished more by Foxconn's business practices more than Gates' legacy will be by his own. But I think we can all agree that animated .gifs of Steve Ballmer dancing at developer conferences are hilarious. Let's get that as our Microsoft icon.

Re:Please,

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no saint without a past.

Well

[Anonymous Coward]

We'll see how this develops. I could not imagine MSFT shooting themselves in both feet this way. Especially since there still will be W8P after W7P.

But if they stick to it, I'm sure corporate users are the ones who will think twice about it. The only thing is, they will think twice in about ten years, since they are corporate...

Re:Well

[TheMathemagician]

Why not? It's MSFT. They're pretty adept at breaking their own products. Don't knock "corporate" users. It was corporates who ensured Vista suffered a premature death.

Re:Well

[WrongSizeGlass]

It's possible that this is the first step toward leaving 'Windows legacy applications' behind. They are going to have to do it sometime, and ARM isn't similar to x86 like Atom is, so this may be a logical starting point.

At some point (Windows 9? Windows 10??) Microsoft is going to need to leave older applications behind to fully transition to the 'Metro' platform/paradigm. This probably will include the desktop .Net frameworks and other MS technologies, libraries, etc. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but it is going to be a significant change and a lot of work for software companies.

Re:Well

[DickBreath]

You are probably right.

That is why I believe WOA will fail.

Leaving the legacy applications behind means WOA is a new platform. Starting basically from scratch. Competing with already entrenched players (iOS and Android). It starts off with little third party software where iOS and Android already have a huge base of developers.

Re:Well

[Half-pint HAL]

It's possible that this is the first step toward leaving 'Windows legacy applications' behind. They are going to have to do it sometime, and ARM isn't similar to x86 like Atom is, so this may be a logical starting point.

Exactly. It's legacy software that's tied mainstream computing to the x86 architecture for two decades. Tthe x86 is a power-hungry architecture best suited for desktop and rack computing, but recent trends are towards mobile computing. Laptops started to outsell desktops. Netbooks hit the market. Smartphones reached a level where they could be used as complete computers. And the Tablet PC concept, which had been bubbling under for over a decade, finally found it's niche as a "maxi-smartphone". x86 is dead, and MS need to encourage people to produce standardised, architecture-neutral code if they're going to migrate to another architecture.

If they don't migrate to another architecture, what happens? Smartphones with HDMI out (and a built-in focus-free laset picoprojector) and Bluetooth or USB for keyboards and mice displace the traditional computer. If Windows is still split between phone and desktop, Windows dies.

So why the separation between desktop and phone OS? Why WOA an not just maintain their ARM version as Windows Phone? Because right now, phone apps are phone apps, and desktop apps are desktop apps. An OS lives and dies on its third party software, and this move is calculated to ensure that there is a back catalogue of desktop software available when the two paradigms merge.

It's a smart move, and shows a lot of foresight. Google should take note, and start working on standardised compatibility layers that encourage Linux app developers to produce software that can be easily migrated to Android.

Re:Well

[0123456]

Exactly. It's legacy software that's tied mainstream computing to the x86 architecture for two decades.

It's legacy software that's tied people to Windows for two decades. Break the compatibility and no-one needs Windows any more.

Re:Well

[Anonymous Coward]

I do not see a problem. Nothing on Mac OS X can run on iOS, why should MSFT be any different.

What they really need to do is start looking at Servers differently from Workstations/Laptops differently from smartphones/tablets. One piece of software does not need to run across all 3 nor should it. I am so tired of people who think they are going to get a tablet to replace their computer and then whine about missing the keyboard.

The reason why Linux is so good for servers is that you should rarely need to interact with the server since it main purpose is to serve things to users. CLI or a simple GUI for administration is all that is really needed on a server. The GUI admin could even be a app you install on your workstation/laptop.

Re:Well

[Anonymous Coward]

ARM isn't similar to x86 like Atom is, so this may be a logical starting point.

As someone running Debian on Arm, the end user experience is effectively the same. The only difference is if you require closed source binary software or hardware that requires closed source binary drivers. Other than that, Linux on Arm and Linux on any other architecture are remarkably similar. Just recompile the code...

Re:Well

[Lehk228]

Google would be looking the other direction, they have an established base of app developers and apps, they should be looking at android as netbook/PC use and encouraging developers to consider KB/mouse input as part of app development

Re:Well

[aepurniet]

Desktop Metro doesnt make sense. its never happening. Microsoft would lose half their customer base to Linux day1 when this happens.

Re:Well

[godefroi]

WOA already was a new platform. New form factors, new markets, new everything. Noone's going to be running a WOA desktop, because it wouldn't make sense for what most people use desktops for. Given the computing requirements of your average user, the CPU on the motherboard isn't the major driver of cost for the machine as a whole. A 1.2 GHz Cortex-A8 CPU has a ~$30 (or less) price advantage over a 2.5 GHz Llano.

Re:Well

[jawtheshark]

If Vista is any indication, no, that won't happen. People will simply stick to an older version of Windows and not touch WOA with a 10-feet pole.

Re:Well

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

The issue is not the (inconvenient, but mostly a problem for developers who are paid for that stuff) fact that you can't easily write one piece of software that suits two or more processor architectures and UI paradigms, at least not well; but the fact that the various emerging platforms are locked down hard.

Yup, just dumping your desktop application onto a phone isn't going to work out too well, even if it is architecturally possible. Fair and natural enough. The problem is that all the various up-and-coming devices(with unpleasantly limited exceptions) are shipping deliberately crippled. Purely for architectural reasons, nothing on OSX would run on iOS without a recompile, and very little would be pleasant to use without a UI redesign; but that is largely irrelevant because you need a cryptographic blessing to even execute. Windows-on-ARM appears to be going the same way, and, while Android lacks such a centralized dictate, your average carrier phone has a few locks in place.

Portability is an engineering and UI/UX hassle. The fact that you can't even try to execute a binary without the blessing of the platform's master is Serious.

Re:Well

[beuges]

Except that Metro on WOA will run the exact same binaries that Metro on Win8 x86/x64 will (except for those few that use native code).

Windows, as a platform, probably has a larger base of developers than both iOS and Android, and anyone publishing a Metro app to the new Windows App Store will have it available to WOA users automatically.

So, assuming that developers start making use of the beta that's coming out end of this month and start writing apps to target Win8's new Metro interface, without even knowing or caring about WOA, this will mean that WOA will have a decent enough supply of software at launch.

Re:Well

[aepurniet]

there is no older version of windows on arm.

Re:Well

[WrongSizeGlass]

ARM isn't similar to x86 like Atom is, so this may be a logical starting point.

As someone running Debian on Arm, the end user experience is effectively the same. The only difference is if you require closed source binary software or hardware that requires closed source binary drivers. Other than that, Linux on Arm and Linux on any other architecture are remarkably similar. Just recompile the code...

Yes, the end user experience is no different, but the developer experience is very different. Linux has been multi-architecture from the beginning. Windows has been entrenched in the x86 camp for so long it doesn't have the option to just recompile.

Linux wanted to work on everything, so it was flexible by design. Windows wanted everyone to run on Windows and only Windows, so it was inflexible by design.

Re:Well

[N1ckR]

10 year transition at a minimum. A few examples: Office 2010 has and extended support until 2020. SQL 2012 will have extended support until 2022 (and uses win32 traditional desktop based GUI tools for management, maintenance and development). This means keeping Windows 8 around for a long time OR Windows 9 and possibly Windows 10 having to support the traditional Windows desktop.

Re:Well

[Anonymous Coward]

It's API compatible minus features not physically available on a tablet. A quick recompile and voila, instant port.

(Granted that port would suck if the UI, etc. weren't tweaked, but that wasn't your point.)

Re:Well

[jawtheshark]

Obviously... That's why I said "and not touch WOA with a 10-feet pole."

Re:Well

[InsertCleverUsername]

Leaving the legacy applications behind means WOA is a new platform. Starting basically from scratch. Competing with already entrenched players (iOS and Android). It starts off with little third party software where iOS and Android already have a huge base of developers.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but why wouldn't MS still allow everyone to run legacy apps in some sort of emulation or virtual the way Win7 does? Would it be slow? Sure, but you would expect the stupid old apps to run about the same speed they did when they were new software (on what is now old hardware). Microsoft's greatest strength/weakness is their commitment to backwards compatibility. I wouldn't expect that to change with WOA.

Re:Well

[0123456]

It's API compatible minus features not physically available on a tablet. A quick recompile and voila, instant port.

You're not a software developer, are you? Because I wouldn't want to work with someone who thinks that they can just do a 'quick recompile' and ship a product out the door.

And, in any case, that wouldn't help the bazillions of old, unsupported Windows programs that keep people tied to Windows.

Re:Well

[Niomosy]

You'll still have Windows in a corporate environment for a while, so long as MS Office remains king. That is a tie you're going to need to break before you can start to say, "no one needs Windows any more." Even then, that's only one major piece. There are still many others to follow.

Re:Well

[aepurniet]

ahh, i still dont get why people are so put off by this whole thing. W8oA is identical to iOS in access, and its easier to compile windows programs for it. its actually a little bit better, since iOS explicitly prohibits open source development, and charges 99/yr for the SDK. Also since the same API's exist on both architectures, it might be the first development environment where you dont have to use an emulator. you can compile/test/debug on x86 and deploy on ARM without hassle.

and as far as the desktop goes, its gonna be pretty much the same for 8 as older versions of windows. (i dont think that the metro start menu will be as omni-present in the community preview release, as it was in the developer preview, but we shall see later this month)

Re:Well

[DickBreath]

Yeah, we'll see how that goes. Developers of some text apps just recompiled for the new Macintosh in 1984 -- and we see how that went over. For a successful app, you have to deeply re-think it for the new platform. Touch, gestures, multi touch, voice commands, plus support for keyboard and pointing device. Location aware. Sensors such as gyro and accelerometer. A different style of UI.

My point is that the legacy API of Windows is a very poor fit to the new platforms. That is one of the many reasons it will fail.

Re:Well

[DickBreath]

Suggesting that people will just stick with an older version of Windows is saying that the Windows platform will die by attrition.

Re:Well

[jawtheshark]

No, they will react (late) and revert the decisions they made. Look at how they got their act together with 7. That said, from what I've seen, 7 is just Vista with a thin layer of veneer. If XP had a good 64 bit version, I'd consider it superior.

Re:Well

[sgunhouse]

You would be emulating a different CPU (and perhaps other hardware too) on a processor with a slower clock cycle ... you might get speeds equivalent to a P6 or thereabouts. If you're lucky.

Re:Well

[unixisc]

Point is all Debian apps - everything in the Debian collection - is FOSS, or in other words, the source code is already there. So of course, it'll be an identical experience. Let's say you use Debian on your ARM PC, and you happen to get hold of a SunBlade 150 workstation. Guess what - you can install the Sparc version of Debian, then all the apps you were running on your PC to the unixstation, and you're off to the races. Since all the source code is w/ you.

Not the case w/ Windows, as WrongSizeGlass points out. There, you just have x86 binaries, so if, somehow, you happened to get an Alphastation in front of you, guess what? You're out of luck here, since all those Windows apps you have won't run on NT on your Alphastation, and only slowly if you happen to have FX!32

Re:Well

[unixisc]

From what I've read, if you install Windows 8, the ONLY UX you get is Metro. I've heard that it can be disabled w/ a registry switch, but how many average users out there want to even TOUCH the registry? I've not read anything that suggests that MS will give users the option of enabling a Windows 7 like UI for desktops or laptops. If they did, there wouldn't have been an issue.

Re:Well

[anonymov]

Same binaries will be relevant when they'll produce UI usable both in dominantly kb+mouse desktop/laptop x86 world and dominantly touchscreen small devices ARM world.

I think this is one of biggest current impediments to the often proclaimed "desktop will soon be dead, you'll just stick your smartphone in a dockstation with keyboard and big display" future.

I'd like to see some advancement in the UI frameworks and guidelines towards interface adapting to the environment - automatically provide toolbars and menus for bigger displays, don't forget about keyboard shortcuts and multiple mouse buttons when docked, and so on, and so on.

Right now, many iOS and Android apps can't even handle landscape/portrait and smartphone/tablet differences gracefully.

Re:Well

[s73v3r]

Yes, but one of the things that I've heard people praise Win8 for was the idea that you could use your existing Windows applications on a tablet. A notion that I found completely absurd, but apparently people are excited to use applications designed for a completely different input paradigm.

Re:Well

[aepurniet]

im typing this from windows 8 right now (developer preview), and its all FUD. the desktop remains untouched. save for this version (and i think its just for the developer preview) they added a metro interface when you press the start button. this is so developers can start programming their apps for the tablet environment before having access to an ARM tablet. the API's (for metro) are actually pretty good. and everything you used to run still runs.

i hope they bring back the regular start button for the community preview coming out later this month. im pretty sure they will, because the community will collectively *shit a brick*, as they say, if they dont.

Re:Well

[DeathFromSomewhere]

It would be horrendously slow and eat battery like mad. It's helpful to keep in mind that WOA is an iPad competitor (read: touch screen UI). Running these old keyboard and mouse interfaces on a touchscreen would make for a terrible user experience, ask anyone that has used a XP or win 7 tablet. Now add in the amount of extra effort that would be required to write not just an x86 emulator but ensuring 100% compatibility with the existing APIs and it becomes clear why Win32 is a non-starter on ARM.

For the people that absolutely cannot live without legacy Win32 code, there will be x86 devices in similar form factors as the ARM devices. There was a whole pile of them unveiled at CES this year.

Re:Well

[s73v3r]

It's not just that it's slow, now they have a completely different instruction set to work with, and it would be pretty difficult and very hard on battery life to have the ARM try to emulate an x86 processor.

In addition, that would serve as a disscentive to develop new applications, and it would be horrible to run on a tablet unless you're carrying around a keyboard and mouse, as none of these applications were really designed for a touchscreen interface.

Re:Well

[s73v3r]

Well, that and the idea that "No one ever got fired for choosing Microsoft."

There are other reasons to stick with Microsoft other than being tied to Windows. Many of the applications currently developed in stuff like .NET could easily have been done in Java, perhaps Ruby or Python, or a handful of other cross-platform languages, depending on the domain. So why .NET?

Re:Well

[s73v3r]

I think we've got two discussions going on here: One is the fact that WOA won't let you run legacy Windows binaries, requiring you to at the very least re-compile, and hopefully rewriting your application to take advantage of the new UI/UX paradigms. As you said, this is largely an engineering problem, and a matter of getting people up off their asses to actually do the stuff.

The second discussion is on the fact that WOA stuff will ONLY be distributed through the Microsoft App Store. Which really just makes the WOA devices the same as an iPad. It remains to see if there will be some kind of unlock process like available to WP7 will be unveiled, but in the absence of such a tool, I agree with you, but at the end of the day, I don't think many people will care so long as the device works well.

Re:Well

[s73v3r]

since iOS explicitly prohibits open source development

No, it doesn't. There is a good amount of Open Source software available for iOS.

Also since the same API's exist on both architectures, it might be the first development environment where you dont have to use an emulator. you can compile/test/debug on x86 and deploy on ARM without hassle.

You would be a complete idiot, and your app would deserve to fail if you did not test/debug on both platforms, and if you did not code your application to take advantage of the different UI/UX paradigms (touch on tablet, keyboard/mouse on desktop).

Re:Well

[gorzek]

You know, it's fine if Microsoft wants to stop having to support old applications in their current version of Windows, but if they want to keep corporate customers happy they will have no choice but support something that can still run those old apps. Something like the "XP Mode" of Vista/7, that runs a virtualized XP instance.

There are some applications that a company simply isn't going to abandon or upgrade because it's too costly to do so, or not even possible. Think applications that someone wrote 10+ years ago, the source has been lost, the original programmer(s) no longer work there, and it's tied into a mission critical function. Programs like this do exist and no company is just going to accept Microsoft saying, "Yeah, sorry, but we don't support that anymore and we won't even sell you an OS license for a version of Windows that can run it."

As much as MS would love to keep everyone on a 2-3 year upgrade treadmill, they're never going to completely eliminate the need for legacy support. What would be nice is something like DOSBox, but for Win32 applications, and preferably with a free license. I don't know if ReactOS is there yet, but that would be a good start. It would be a bit ironic if Microsoft finally stopped having to deal with legacy apps because others implemented a free version of the Windows API, as happened with DOS.

Short of that, I hope MS is prepared to keep selling XP licenses until the end of time. :-p

Re:Well

[Half-pint HAL]

I do not see a problem. Nothing on Mac OS X can run on iOS, why should MSFT be any different.

What they really need to do is start looking at Servers differently from Workstations/Laptops differently from smartphones/tablets. One piece of software does not need to run across all 3 nor should it. I am so tired of people who think they are going to get a tablet to replace their computer and then whine about missing the keyboard.

If you disagree with the core of my argument, fine, disagree with it. But you've ignored it. My argument: desktop and mobile computing are converging. There will not be three platforms in 10 years time. A tablet will be a computer without a keyboard. A smartphone will be a tablet with a smaller screen. Plug your smartphone into a TV and whack on a keyboard, and you will be using it as your computer. The business traveller will love it, as it'll take that (heavy) laptop bag off his shoulders, and his hotel and destination office will provide him with the keyboard and screen. Hotdesking will be revitalised as it's "sit down anywhere and stick your phone in the cradle".

Do you think it's impossible? The average user doesn't need that much power in his pocket? Well, gamers don't need a fully powered business machine, but since the days of the C64 they have been buying them anyway. Your average Word-and-Excel desk jockey doesn't need a rig capable of rendering a 3D CAD model or a short animated film, but most have them. Granny only wants to email her grandson at college, and yet she's got a machine that's capable of running Crysis.

That's how general-purpose computing works -- sell one thing to everyone. It doesn't matter that most of us just want to play Angry Birds, watch YouTube vids and, y' know, phone people up; our smartphones will be fully capable business computers.

Re:Well

[ninjacut]

The momentum will keep it selling, and the applications will catch up. Even with poor Windows Phone sales, the applications have grown pretty quickly. Windows always had bigger developer community and the huge desktop share will trickle into WOA as well. So predicting failure is too early

Re:Well

[Belial6]

The first thing Google should do get Android x86 running up to snuff. They should then package a distribution of Android that runs as an application on Windows, and allows the use of Android widgets on the Windows desktop. Do the same for the major Linux Distros and OSX. While there are some applications that are only suited to the small screen of a phone, and there are some applications that are only suited to the large screen of desktop. The majority of applications are good on both platforms, and it would add huge value to the user while pulling them into the Android ecosystem.

Re:Well

[InsertCleverUsername]

Ah... Thanks everyone for all the informative replies. I actually don't own a tablet, so the battery life issue didn't occur to me. I guess if people really can't live without a certain legacy apps, remoting would be a better way to go. Maybe breaking away from the desktop will finally get people to move away from crappy old legacy systems.

Re:Well

[shutdown -p now]

Yes, but one of the things that I've heard people praise Win8 for was the idea that you could use your existing Windows applications on a tablet. A notion that I found completely absurd, but apparently people are excited to use applications designed for a completely different input paradigm.

We already have devices that successfully combine tablet and laptop input paradigm, letting you transition from one to another smoothly when needed without having to lug around two distinct, separately configured and maintained devices - have a look at Asus Transformer to see an example.

Such devices, however, need software to match their capability. Windows 8, with its Metro UI for touch, and classic desktop for keyboard/trackpad/mouse, is precisely that. It's unfortunate that classic desktop is not fully enabled (no third party software for it) in WoA, because it means that any such hybrids designed for Win8 will necessarily have to stick to x86.

Re:Well

[shutdown -p now]

Note that, if legacy apps are an issue, you still can buy an x86 tablet - even the ones available today will give you much better perf and battery than emulating x86 on ARM, not to mention Medfield and Fusion.

Re:Well

[shutdown -p now]

It's API compatible minus features not physically available on a tablet. A quick recompile and voila, instant port.

API compatible with what? Metro apps are most certainly not API-compatible with the current Win32 desktop API - you have a very limited subset of Win32 that you can use, and other than that you're required to move on to WinRT which is completely different.

So, no, you can't take an existing Win32 app, and just recompile it on ARM.

Re:Well

[shutdown -p now]

I don't like that arrangement myself; however, not all is lost - so long as Intel and AMD can compete with ARM on power consumption (and they have demonstrated this year that they can), we can still have open hardware in convenient form factors like tablets.

Re:Well

[aepurniet]

No, it doesn't. There is a good amount of Open Source software available for iOS.

let me rephrase then. you cannot sell or even distribute for free open licensed software through the apple app store. to install open source software (legally, and in compliance with all of apple's eulas) on your phone or tablet, is to apply for a SDK license, and once apple approves said application, you then have the pleasure of paying $99/yr for access to your own phone or tablet. you may then download, modify, compile and install to your own machine only.

You would be a complete idiot, and your app would deserve to fail if you did not test/debug on both platforms, ...

of course you dont blindly distribute programs without testing on the actual target hardware. however its a lot easier to test through emulators before throwing the app on the hardware (this is 99% of development and debugging). its even easier if actual development machine provides the same API access that the target machine has. this means no cross compilation / emulation for regular day to day coding / testing iteration. throw in a touch screen monitor (or emulate just the input) and you have a giant tablet on your desktop, that will make development and testing 100x easier.

now im probably not gonna get a microsoft tablet or phone, but what they are doing is nothing apple hasnt done before. in actuality the situation is not as bad as the situation with apple. its just a group-think microsoft bashing and FUD spreading. before you know it, some people are under the impression that windows 8 is getting rid of the desktop.

Re:Well

[bluegreen997]

Do you think it's impossible? The average user doesn't need that much power in his pocket? Well, gamers don't need a fully powered business machine, but since the days of the C64 they have been buying them anyway. Your average Word-and-Excel desk jockey doesn't need a rig capable of rendering a 3D CAD model or a short animated film, but most have them. Granny only wants to email her grandson at college, and yet she's got a machine that's capable of running Crysis.

I'm not sure what you mean by that bolded part. Most gamer computers are easily as powerful if not more than any 'fully powered business machine'. And no, playing Minesweeper/Angry Birds/Farmville does not qualify you as a gamer.

That being said I have no doubt that your 1st paragraph will evolve in some way shape or form. Likely in ways we can't really imagine yet but I think you are on the right track. However there still is going to be a place for more powerful machines that don't reside in your pocket on on the cloud.

Re:Well

[symbolset]

This seems likely. App compat has been their albatross for a long time, and here's an incremental way to get rid of it. But of course this is going to make a lot of people very... reluctant. Especially people fully committed to the prior toolchain. Professional devs houses will just go with what sells, but individual devs and corporate dev teams will chafe.

A bold move.

More!

[AntEater]

Combining both of these decisions under the 'Windows' brand could be disastrous...

I, for one, welcome more disasterous actions from our anti-trust overlords.

not because Microsoft is evil,

Obviously, someone is very inexperienced in this field.

Re:More!

[DrgnDancer]

He wasn't saying that Microsoft isn't evil, only that their evilness or lack thereof is irrelevant to the point he is currently trying to make.

Think asus transformer

[Anonymous Coward]

Think asus transformer like device, but instead of android, windows 8 with both "touch native" metro apps and regular windows+office for some stuff. With battery life similar to ipad.

The limitation that software can only be gotten from microsoft store may matter to some. How about getting a device with x86 windows 8 then.

Re:Think asus transformer

[DickBreath]

The problem with expecting WOA to succeed is that Android is already a successful platform. 200 Million installed base, with 700,000 activations per day (or 8.1 activations per second).

WOA is starting out as the new guy on the block with no software base. How much third party software will be available for WOA? How much legacy software will be available? The entire value proposition of Windows is the huge important legacy software base it runs. (I don't mean games. I mean business applications.) Will the specialty software that is sued by the Bakery, or the Quick Oil Change place be available for WOA?

Re:Think asus transformer

[Anonymous Coward]

Android is a sucessful platform... in the phone market.
Android tablet sales have consistently been disappointing.

Re:Think asus transformer

[dimeglio]

Android doesn't have Microsoft's office suite. Those Android activations are mainly for smartphones and not tablets. So Android is beating WP7 for certain.

Re:Think asus transformer

[Anonymous Coward]

If by disappointing, you mean a rounding error at zero, then yes.

Re:Think asus transformer

[lister king of smeg]

And the millions of kindle fire and nook color are what exactly then?

there are other ARM options..

[apodyopsis]

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2012/01/new-kde-tablet-to-liberate-linux-enthusiasts-from-walled-garden.ars

Suddenly one of these is looking tempting for my tablet needs.

I did have an ASUS transformer for a few months but I sold it to a friend as I was unhappy with the way Android does things. I have an iPhone and whilst I think iOS is very clever I'm not convinced I would want it in a larger form factor. I want to be able to write code, play with software and be the master of my own system to a level that Android and iOS does not seem to happy with. I was wondering is an ARM Win8 tablet was the way forward - but this seems to rule of that option :(

I admit some Linux bias as I only use it at home and coding on it (armel linux) forms a large part of my job as well.

Re:there are other ARM options..

[JoeMerchant]

So, Spark ships with Plasma Active pre-installed, which is nice.

Can't Plasma Active be installed on any number of tablets? I'm thinking of the RockBox / DD-WRT experience for tablets instead of Music players / Routers.

As for Win8 Arm gaining the walled garden "feature" of iOS... good luck with that. I'll write code for Win8 on Arm when I can do it using the Qt API.

Re:there are other ARM options..

[Microlith]

The problem with putting Plasma Active on any number of tablets is the nature of ARM platforms themselves:

- No two boards are alike, all different in how GPIOs are hooked up and what they do, even if the SoC is the same.
- Only the hardware vendor gets the sources for some drivers, usually GPU. Thus putting something like Xorg on these devices is exceedingly hard. Spark works around it with a completely reverse-engineered Mali driver.
- Many tablets put up a fight when it comes to installing 3rd party firmware, unlike most PMPs/Routers. Even the Transformer Prime is locked down and ASUS has yet to release the promised unlock.
- Tablets with Android tend to have older kernels, with little to nothing having gone upstream thus making adaptation harder.

So it's a nice thought, and there are attempts, but it's nowhere near as easy in the tablet and handset space as it is in the PMP/Router space.

Re:there are other ARM options..

[Anonymous Coward]

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2012/01/new-kde-tablet-to-liberate-linux-enthusiasts-from-walled-garden.ars

Suddenly one of these is looking tempting for my tablet needs.

"needs" is an odd word to apply to a tablet. Why do you need it? What critical problem do you have that it solves?

Re:there are other ARM options..

[shutdown -p now]

How about waiting for someone (maybe even Asus) to make a Transformer-type tablet using Intel Medfield or AMD Fusion? Then you'll have hardware in iPad-like form factor and with similar weight and battery life, but you can install whatever you want on it - Win8, any Linux distro etc.

And those are most certainly coming by the end of this year.

Re:there are other ARM options..

[Anonymous Coward]

You're in luck. The Windows Runtime exposes D3D (and QT already supports a GL backend, so a port ought to be possible). You're also able to bring your own libraries and run whatever code you can "pack in" (in this case -- the QT libraries + your application code).

See:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/apps/br205756.aspx

Re:there are other ARM options..

[rdnetto]

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2012/01/new-kde-tablet-to-liberate-linux-enthusiasts-from-walled-garden.ars

Suddenly one of these is looking tempting for my tablet needs.

I did have an ASUS transformer for a few months but I sold it to a friend as I was unhappy with the way Android does things.

As the owner of an Asus Transformer currently running Kubuntu, I find this somewhat ironic.

Re:there are other ARM options..

[unixisc]

But Active Plasma is just a Desktop environment, just like KDE is - in fact, it IS KDE for tablets. I'm not sure whether it needs X or Wayland to run, or whether it can be installed on barebones Linux/BSD, but if the latter is possible, w/o X, then I'd think all the ARM platforms that are going to take Linux or BSD will run Plasma Active easily.

Re:there are other ARM options..

[rdnetto]

The problems with putting Plasma Active on different tablets are almost the same as the problems with putting Cyanogen on different phones. That hasn't stopped Cyanogen from becoming extremely popular.

The problem with putting Plasma Active on any number of tablets is the nature of ARM platforms themselves:

- No two boards are alike, all different in how GPIOs are hooked up and what they do, even if the SoC is the same.

This is true. However, this is handled in the kernel, and since Android uses a fork of the GPLed Linux kernel, recompiling the kernel with support for the requisite filesystems, etc. is trivial. (Some effort may be required to handle differences between Android and Linux architectures for things like sound drivers.)

- Only the hardware vendor gets the sources for some drivers, usually GPU. Thus putting something like Xorg on these devices is exceedingly hard. Spark works around it with a completely reverse-engineered Mali driver.

Xorg isn't hard - it doesn't even need a GPU. The hard part is hardware acceleration, without which you can say goodbye to video playback at any decent resolution. This is probably the biggest problem right now. The only solution I can think of is for someone like the nouveau project to create drivers for a common chipset like the Tegra series, which would take a lot of resources and a considerable amount of time.

For other devices, like bluetooth/wifi modules, the binary blobs from Android can be used as is.

- Many tablets put up a fight when it comes to installing 3rd party firmware, unlike most PMPs/Routers. Even the Transformer Prime is locked down and ASUS has yet to release the promised unlock.

I agree that this can be problematic, and that we are at the manufacturer's mercy in this regard (unless someone is able to take the tablet apart and read the keys directly off the chip's fuses). Asus announced that they would release the unlock this month, and as long as they do so they're far ahead of their competitors in this regard. (It's only a flashboot unlock and not one for nvflash, which means you can't repartition the drive, but it's still better than nothing.) It's likely that they will continue to release unlocks for all future devices, which would provide a partial solution to this problem.

- Tablets with Android tend to have older kernels, with little to nothing having gone upstream thus making adaptation harder.

So it's a nice thought, and there are attempts, but it's nowhere near as easy in the tablet and handset space as it is in the PMP/Router space.

There is some work at the moment on merging some of the changes in the Android kernel (particularly those involving power management and drivers) into the mainline, which is due to be completed by 3.4. In the meantime, Android didn't fork the kernel that long ago - what changes have their been made since then that offer a substantial impediment to running Plasma Active (or any other modern distro)?

Running Plasma Active on numerous tablets may not be as simple as running an installation program, but it's definitely not as hard as many would believe. The only reason we haven't seen this happening yet is because it's incomplete.

Re:there are other ARM options..

[Anonymous Coward]

This tablet is special in that regard that they found a manufacturer that is willing to provide the source code needed to run a full Linux stack on the device. Other manufacturers just slap a random Android version on their tablet and don't even bother to release the source code to their kernel modifications (which is a massive GPL violation in itself). This mostly prevents porting Mer/Plasma-Active to these devices or at least makes it very hard.

Re:Why is this relevant?

[Anonymous Coward]

No one will ever use Windows on ARM anyway, so I'm not sure how _any_ news of limitations is relevant.

arm is a nice plattform...

Re:Why is this relevant?

[SuricouRaven]

Depends how good their marketing department is. Remember, they can afford to lose a few hundred million dollars a year in that department for however long it takes to turn it into something profitable, and they have a history of using their successful products as tools to drive users to their unsuccessful products.

Obvious problem is the drivers

[laffer1]

It's scary that you have to get drivers through the windows store. That means you could never get some new arm hardware running with windows as a hobbyist or try some third party driver when the default crashes. It also means that it might be harder to upgrade windows on some devices as microsoft could block you from getting drivers for the current windows release.

The ARM port is truly a hardware lock-in. I hope it fails.

Re:Obvious problem is the drivers

[sgt scrub]

Agreed. It is a light at the end of a tunnel playing the evil Windows start up jingle.

Re:Obvious problem is the drivers

[ninjacut]

it is actually the best decision for the platform, more you control hardware and software distribution the better for end-users. The hobbyist need to play with Linux, not sure why they are interested in discussing Windows in the first place

I've heard that before...

[marcosdumay]

It's hard to under-emphasize just how huge a change that is.

I've heard that phrase before, from MS. Last times they've said that, they couldn't release and the product flopped.

When is their release date again?

Fracturing

[Sarten-X]

Y'know, for all I hear about Linux being so fractured, I'd expect to see more coherence from Microsoft and Apple.

The vast majority of distros differ in small ways, but they all work with mostly the same paradigms. To install software, you usually install a package from a repository. To add something not in the repositories, it's usually "./configure; make; make install".

Looking at the Windows world, there's worse fracturing, but because it's all under one brand, it's somehow okay. Inter-process communication is done with DDE - no, wait - OLE. I mean sockets. Really .NET has its own IPC and you should use that now. On one system, you install with an executable file obtained from the vendor. On another system, you install through a storefront.

At least Linux accepts that it's fractured, and each distro often learns from the others.

Re:Fracturing

[tepples]

Inter-process communication is done with DDE - no, wait - OLE. I mean sockets. Really .NET has its own IPC and you should use that now.

So should a UNIX program use pipes, X11 Inter-Client Exchange (basis for DCOP), Bonobo, or DBUS?

Re:Fracturing

[xC0000005]

Almost all the previous forms of IPC still work (DLL globals do not, but those were a form of shared memory, which does). I'm not certain that your example makes much sense.

Re:Fracturing

[Sarten-X]

I'm not saying they don't work, but just pointing out Microsoft has an irritating habit of changing their suggested mechanisms every few years, then treating their old prodigal son as the red-headed stepchild. It may be a common trait of commercial software to show disgust toward older ideas, but with Microsoft, it seems to be their intent all along.

Microsoft changes product names based on whatever marketing program they're running at the time. I think of Windows Live Messenger (a.k.a. Windows Messenger, MSN Messenger). I think of Windows Live ID (a.k.a. Microsoft Wallet, Microsoft Passport, .NET Passport, Microsoft Passport Network). I think of Windows Live Hotmail (a.k.a. Hotmail, MSN Hotmail).

With FOSS projects, there's usually a brief period where the original project's name is hammered out around trademark conflicts, and then it sticks. Mandriva's the biggest project I can think of offhand that changed its name after it was popular, and that came after a lawsuit. Even as new projects supersede old ones, there's rarely the disdain for using something older.

Chicken and Egg problem

[DickBreath]

The value of Windows is the huge legacy software collection that it runs.

A "windows" platform that cannot run that software base is basically a new platform. Starting from scratch. Sort of like a new version of Linux, or Hurd, or something new.

Microsoft may port their own apps. Great. But what about third parties?

There is .NET, of course. But apps written in .NET would be fairly new apps. What about apps written in older languages? Some apps may be trivially recompiled. Or recompiled after significant effort. But some apps may be slightly or even deeply wedded to the x86 and maybe x64 architectures.

Other apps may be wedded to legacy languages that may not get ported. Will Microsoft be porting Visual Basic 6? Visual FoxPro? What about Delphi? Etc.

Even if a developer can fairly trivially build their app for WOA, why would they if there is not a large user base on that platform ready to fork over money? The developer has to expend effort (eg cost) today on a platform where customer demand may not materialize. If WOA doesn't run an end user's favorite legacy applications, then why would the user want to migrate to WOA? It's cheap and easy to buy a desktop or laptop running legacy Windows that is familiar and runs your legacy apps.

WOA has a chicken and egg problem. Which came first? The large number of third party apps / developers supporting WOA? Or the large end user base running WOA?

Furthermore, a developer who expends effort to port their product to WOA, even if "porting" is little more than a trivial recompile and repackaging, and tracking new SKU's, that developer will want to be compensated for that additional effort. You can bet that developer will want top dollar (eg price gouging) for that new WOA edition of their product. Do you really think you'll see a $99 Photoshop on WOA? Also don't expect a free upgrade to the WOA edition of your current application.

WOA may be Microsoft's counterpart of the PS/2 moment. The market may "just say no" (as they say in the '80's). The problem with PS/2 was that it was nothing more than an attempt to recapture IBM's monopoly using a new platform. That is what WOA is. Microsoft wants their legacy monopoly on these new mobile ARM platforms, just as IBM wanted their legacy mainframe monopoly in the PC market.

Another problem is that these new platforms are fundamentally different. They bring things that legacy PC's don't have deeply baked into the system and applications. Android for example can support both the legacy keyboard / mouse setup as well as touchscreen and voice commands. Those pesky new PC's offered a lot more than a mainframe terminal had, such as mouse and GUI. Oh, and cheap software, just as the new platform app stores offer pretty cheap apps.

Want to see WOA go exactly nowhere? There's an app for that!

Re:Chicken and Egg problem

[DickBreath]

To add to my argument (parent post), I would like to add . . .

Both iOS and Android are already entrenched. WOA is starting out with zilch third party software. Android has 200 million installed base and 700,000 activations per day (or 8.1 per second). WOA isn't even reality yet.

As others point out, what about drivers? How are you going to get third party device drivers for WOA? (Of course, in fairness, this question could be asked for Android and iOS as well. But I think expectations of an iOS / Android device are different than something branded "Windows".)

I mentioned languages like VB6, VFP, Delphi, etc. Some scoff at that. I'm not saying they are sexy, I'm just saying that a lot of software that makes the world go around is written in those non sexy tools.

Re:Chicken and Egg problem

[Half-pint HAL]

WOA has a chicken and egg problem. Which came first? The large number of third party apps / developers supporting WOA? Or the large end user base running WOA?

I think WOA is actually an attempt to avoid a future chicken-and-egg problem. As I said in another post, the current trend in computing is heading towards convergence of personal computing and mobile computing. No smartphones or smartphone-derived tablets currently have any real quantities of desktop-replacement apps. When the convergence comes, whichever OS has the most productivity software (as it was referred to way-back-when) will have a massive advantage.

In order for this to work, Microsoft don't need every vendor to port their software to WOA, they just need a few, because they just need more apps than their competitors. LibreOffice is being ported to Android and iOS. MS Office will be available for WOA, and will therefore be easily converted to run on post-convergence-Windows. Tie. Any apps beyond this are a bonus.

Re:Chicken and Egg problem

[0123456]

No smartphones or smartphone-derived tablets currently have any real quantities of desktop-replacement apps.

I totally want to run Word on my phone.

Re:Chicken and Egg problem

[DickBreath]

I strongly agree with your point about convergence of desktop and mobile. I just believe Windows isn't the OS that will bring it.

Your point is well made about lack of significant numbers of desktop-replacement apps. But then, neither does WOA. If Microsoft is making developers have to re-think their app, their UI, and perhaps their development tools, and how they even get their product marketed and delivered to the consumer, then maybe those developers will recognize that they can equally re-think all of these things in terms of iOS and/or Android. And those two OSes are already significantly entrenched, while WOA isn't even a reality yet.

> LibreOffice is being ported to Android and iOS.

Yes, I am aware of this.

> Tie. Any apps beyond this are a bonus.

I don't think it is a tie. I think Microsoft is way, way behind. iOS and Android already have huge numbers of apps, but more importantly, a huge third party developer base. Developers who have already significantly re-thought their apps for the new type of platform. The new UI style. The fact that touchscreen, gestures and multi-touch and voice commands are a given -- in addition to working with a keyboard, and pointing device(s). Most traditional Windows developers have not yet or only just begun to think about these concepts. I am thinking that if a developer has to significantly re-think their application for the new style platforms, then iOS and Android are the hands down winners.

A developer who thinks they can port their existing Windows application to WOA is falling into exactly the trap of developers when the Macintosh came out in 1984. You had to significantly re-think your application. Those who thought they could just port their text based app found out the hard way that this didn't work out so well. I liken this to shoehorning a traditional Windows GUI into a modern tablet. Yuk. So re-thinking is a must, for a successful application. Therefore, WOA loses, IMO.

Re:Chicken and Egg problem

[Anonymous Coward]

If you have two roughly equivalent phones - and one runs word in a docking mode, why wouldn't you?

It reminds me of a party I was at 5 years ago with the CFO of a relatively large company. His comment was "if Blackberry ran excel, I probably wouldn't need a computer."

There is an entire class of professionals that don't really need anything beyond word processing, excel, email, and basic internet access. These professionals would love _LOVE_ to lose their laptop and only have a phone with some sort of home/work docking solution. Motorola has tried this but they don't understand the point of the feature* and (bigger) they don't run MS Office.

* the point of the feature is that you don't need to lug around a laptop. You have two docks - one at work, one lapdock that stays at home 95% of the time. Now all you need for your commute is your phone. Instead they show people bringing their lapdock _with_ them when the whole point of the product should be the need to carry _less_ stuff.

Re:Chicken and Egg problem

[DickBreath]

There already are multiple "office suite" type apps for Android. They do not pretend to be Microsoft Office replacements. But they are re-thought for the new mobile format. I believe the current "office" type apps on Android are only the beginning of the evolution of these apps, not the endpoint.

Re:Chicken and Egg problem

[NatasRevol]

I already run google docs.

Re:Chicken and Egg problem

[Anonymous Coward]

The value of Windows is the huge legacy software collection that it runs.

A "windows" platform that cannot run that software base is basically a new platform. Starting from scratch. Sort of like a new version of Linux, or Hurd, or something new. ...

There is .NET, of course. But apps written in .NET would be fairly new apps. What about apps written in older languages? Some apps may be trivially recompiled. Or recompiled after significant effort. But some apps may be slightly or even deeply wedded to the x86 and maybe x64 architectures.

.NET is 10 years old. How many more years does Joe-Blow Software Inc need before they can fully support a modern Windows installation?

It's one thing for Microsoft to make the switch overnight; it's quite another to make it a 15-year process. We're talking about for-profit software companies. Giving them more than a decade to switch is pretty generous.

Re:Chicken and Egg problem

[unixisc]

Typing on a phone is really painful, and the lack of MS Office or Word ain't what threatens WOA. If a laptop is too much, a tablet would be a better option, but not a phone.

If you have a smart phone that in an office environment, you plan to actually use for work related stuff, the main use is likely to be the instant verification of information. For instance, if your company has SAP mobile, that's one of the things you could use your phone to access information from your corporate IT systems. It's handy if you want to check corporate e-mail for statuses, or maybe forward that customer product roadmap to the customer while you are meeting them. Or if you want to download a file on your SharePoint account which you'd want to review later in your hotel room, that's the other thing you can do w/ it.

So that begs the question - what exactly will Microsoft be including in WOA that would make it usable in the above scenario? Is Exchange going to be there? Outlook? SharePoint? How about Third Party vendors - and I mean the business ones like SAP, not the guys who write Angry Birds. Are they going to come?

Re:Chicken and Egg problem

[Missing.Matter]

As others point out, what about drivers? How are you going to get third party device drivers for WOA?

FTFA: "Consumers obtain all software, including device drivers, through the Windows Store and Microsoft Update or Windows Update."

Re:Chicken and Egg problem

[fast turtle]

The only other apps that are needed by small businesses are Acrobat and Flash. MS actually has a decent replacement for Quickbooks though that's one that will be ported to WOA simply because Intuit doesn't want to loose business. To many small businesses use/depend on Quickbooks for their accounting needs and they're pretty much the defacto standard package for them. On the Acrobat and Flash issue, you simply can't avoid either of them because to many businesses use Acrobat for sending documents. My personal preferrence is an older version of Foxit Reader (1.3 build 1622) as it does what I need most times but sometimes I do have to use Acrobat because the idiots seem to think it's critical to use the latest stinking features for a simple doc.

As a home user, with the exception of Flash and Acrobat, there's little additional software that's needed. I have a friend who I provide occaisional support for that is now running this setup. She does have flash and Acrobat installed due to YouTube and various PDF's that simply depend on features that aren't supported by Foxit or Sumutra. Hell they'd be able to get by quite well with WOA if it was a decent laptop setup that satisfied their needs and because of them, I'll be testing the Beta/Preview as much as possible when it's available. If it works well and both Flash and Acrobat are ported to the WOA version, I'll be able to satisfy their RFC when they're ready to replace/upgrade their current laptop (about 2-3 years).

Re:Chicken and Egg problem

[Missing.Matter]

If Microsoft is making developers have to re-think their app, their UI, and perhaps their development tools

The app and UI can be completely the same. WOA supports the Windows Explorer and thus the Desktop, so it's not always metro. You can application can look exactly as it does on x86. In terms of developer tools, I don't know. Many .Net developers might just be able to select the ARM compiler flag and go. There are a lot of apps that would instantly be available for WOA if this is the case.

and how they even get their product marketed and delivered to the consumer

They can market their product same as always. Distribution has to be through the Windows Store so that would be the only big change. But given that the software would have to go through an app store for all the other platforms it doesn't seem to be a deal breaker in this case.

but more importantly, a huge third party developer base. Developers who have already significantly re-thought their apps for the new type of platform. The new UI style. The fact that touchscreen, gestures and multi-touch and voice commands are a given -- in addition to working with a keyboard, and pointing device(s). Most traditional Windows developers have not yet or only just begun to think about these concepts.

You seem to be making this assumption that there are only iOS, Android, or Windows developers... and not that most companies these days are developing for all platforms at once. This isn't a matter of stealing developers from another platform or attracting first time devs. This is an issue of a company that develops for iOS, Android, and Windows deciding if they want to support a new platform. Obviously that choice is easier to make if the install base is large (which of course is at 0 now) so it all hinges on how easily Microsoft makes it to develop for WOA.

Re:Chicken and Egg problem

[lister king of smeg]

One place I work just upgraded there last windows 3.1.1 install to xp a couple of years ago. Do not underestimate the power of leagacy software

Re:Chicken and Egg problem

[shutdown -p now]

The app and UI can be completely the same. WOA supports the Windows Explorer and thus the Desktop, so it's not always metro. You can application can look exactly as it does on x86.

You can't. That's the whole point of the story - WoA has desktop, yes, but you can only install software on it from Windows Store. And only Metro apps can be published to Windows Store. So WoA desktop is effectively locked down with respect to apps that it can run - stuff like Explorer and Office.

Re:Chicken and Egg problem

[spiralx]

Don't overestimate how many companies care about 0.001% of the market though.

Re:Chicken and Egg problem

[Missing.Matter]

I get that, but that doesn't preclude your app from looking and feeling the same. Your app is going to need some work, there's not question of that. But you can still use a mouse and keyboard with it. It can still be laid out the same. It can have a similar UI and a similar layout; it doesn't have to be touch friendly.

Re:Chicken and Egg problem

[shutdown -p now]

If it's not touch friendly, I doubt that it'd pass Windows Store certification process.

And it still can't quite look and feel the same in all ways, because you're missing all the desktop services - taskbar, system tray, non-maximized windows, all that stuff. No drag and drop across app windows, either. No access to the entire file system, only the standard Documents/Pictures/... folders. There are a lot of no's in Metro.

Don't see the big deal

[ArchieBunker]

You don't like these new terms? Well then don't fucking buy it then. I fail to see the outrage here... Sounds exactly like the Apple walled garden approach.

Re:Don't see the big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. I think we should all agree to skip over this version just like we did with WinME. Not that it taught them a lesson.

Re:Don't see the big deal

[Gaygirlie]

You too are missing the point: Microsoft is selling Windows 8 and Windows 8, general end-users only see "Windows" and obviously assume that one Windows works as the other Windows does. It will be fiendishly confusing for the general populace. If Microsoft is going to make the two different versions so very different from eachother it might have been a good idea to sell the ARM-version with a completely different brand-name.

Re:Don't see the big deal

[DickBreath]

My preference would be to see Windows 8 devices have no distinguishing marking to differentiate between x86 / x64 devices and ARM devices. An Asus Transformer like device that has an ARM processor, that Jane Q Public thinks will run her existing legacy Windows software. Yeah, that will go over like, um, well, like a PS/2, or like a lead balloon.

Re:Don't see the big deal

[tepples]

You don't like these new terms? Well then don't fucking buy it then.

So what should one buy instead of this product if Microsoft starts suing Android tablet makers for patent infringement?

Re:Don't see the big deal

[Anne Thwacks]

Dont know what you should buy, but you might want to go short on your MS stock.

Re:Don't see the big deal

[recoiledsnake]

Please RTFA.

Re:Don't see the big deal

[John Hasler]

So what should one buy instead of this product if Microsoft starts suing Android tablet makers for patent infringement?

Google shares. Microsoft would get hammered in such a war.

Re:Don't see the big deal

[Missing.Matter]

if Microsoft starts suing Android tablet makers for patent infringement?

Microsoft has already struck patent licensing deals with most Android tablet manufacturers, including Samsung, LG, Acer, and Viewsonic.

Re:Don't see the big deal

[Bob The Cowboy]

Yes, yes it does sound like the Apple approach. Which is largely disapproved of on /.

Don't buy it is fantastic advice. I wasn't going to buy it in any case, but now thanks to this article, I have it in the back of my head to be sure to recommend that others do not buy it either.

So, to paraphrase...

"You don't like this article? Well then don't fucking comment on it then."

Re:Don't see the big deal

[couchslug]

I'm fine with pointing them out if they will assist potential customers in
making a different choice!

Let it begin...

[neokushan]

Whenever the first tidbits of the UEFI secure boot cropped up that many people immediately cried foul over, I was one of the people who stood up and said "Not so fast, everyone - it's mandated that it be enabled by default, but there's nothing to say you can't customise it or disable it". Many people were quick to jump on MS, stating that it's just to stop Linux adoption and such and still I persisted in saying that MS wasn't the bad guy, if you didn't have an option to disable UEFI secure boot, it was the OEM or motherboard manufacturer at fault, not MS. I got into many heated debates about this point.

However, that was regarding Windows 8 x86/64.

Windows on ARM will demand that UEFI secure boot be enabled and that there is no way to disable it. Any Windows ARM tablets or PCs that come out will not be capable of running anything other than Windows - not Linux, not Android, nothing. Since Windows ARM won't be sold directly, it means there will be absolutely no way to buy a Windows ARM machine that runs other OS's - not even if you built one yourself.

It is with this that I retract any previous objections to people crying foul over the UEFI Secure boot malarkey. Even though Windows 8 x86/64 is still "fine", the issue of the ARM version is too great to ignore. So by all means, commence flaming.

Re:Let it begin...

[gl4ss]

vote with your cash.

I will.

honestly though I'm surprised they're even going to allow regular "desktop" and programs on the arm windows, I genuinely thought they would just go through shitty windows phone/zune type of system there to avoid fucking up the windows brand.

now back to installing virtualbox to run some legacy os to run some obscure modelling program..

Re:Let it begin...

[Daniel Phillips]

Sure, it's foul. It's Microsoft, what do you expect? However since this product is highly likely just to wither and die with a wimper I do not think the damage from Microsoft's latest insult to you, me and the rule of law will be extensive or long lasting.

Re:Let it begin...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think what we're seeing with Windows on ARM is the future plans Microsoft has for Windows. They want to move away from the computer being a general computing device with which you can do anything you want, and turn it into an appliance with which you can run a few Microsoft approved applications.
With this Microsoft will stop a lot of complaints about Windows being unstable, slow, &c. Even though these problems were not the fault of Windows but of dubious software the user installed (and thus ultimately the fault of the user) the operating system somehow always gets the blame. The user won't mind not being able to install said software however, because most of the time they installed such software, they did so even though they knew they didn't want to. (Don't give me crap about installing things "accidentally"; I've worked for tech support. What happens is this: user sees porn.zip.exe, double clicks. Windows warns you about dangerous files from the internet. They know they have had trouble in the past, they know they don't want to, but they watch helplessly as their hand moves and clicks the button.) The New Windows will protect users from themselves and they like that. People don't want the freedom to do things they know are stupid, but that they known they will do anyway.
With the New Windows, Microsoft will also gain a strategic point of control which could be monetised or otherwise exploited in the future.
For most people this is just fine. They only browse the web and type a letter or two and possibly play a game; you can bet Word and popular games are in the application, sorry, app store. Niche users are SOL but they are not a sufficiently big demographic to make Microsoft care about them. They don't matter and if at some point it becomes impossible (or prohibitively expensive or complicated) to buy an unlocked computer that's just too bad for them. Nobody cares for minorities; if anything they look down upon them. Don't expect sympathy if you complain to your friends in 2050 that you can't buy a computer that will run Linux or some obscure software package.

Re:Let it begin...

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows on ARM will demand that UEFI secure boot be enabled and that there is no way to disable it. Any Windows ARM tablets or PCs that come out will not be capable of running anything other than Windows - not Linux, not Android, nothing. Since Windows ARM won't be sold directly, it means there will be absolutely no way to buy a Windows ARM machine that runs other OS's - not even if you built one yourself.

That's not news; that's what the originial UEFI secure boot news item was about. The argument was always over Microsoft trying to make ARM devices Windows-only. Sure it's obnoxious if they try to do the same on x86/x86-64 (where their official UEFI secure boot policy is weaker), but non-Windows uses of those systems are already well-enough entrenched that they know that wouldn't work.

Unless I'm missing something vendors theoretically could give users a key to the UEFI secure boot on their own devices (or a way to insert their own key) so users could install their own OSes (in theory). Not that I expect that to happen. Installing your own OS on Windows 8 tablets/phones will probably be left up to jailbreaking, just like it is on most ARM devices (i.e. nearly every Android and all iOS tablets/phones). I'll continue buying devices that aren't locked down (I own a Nokia N9; the Google Android devices are also an option), but it's ridiculous that such an option is even legal. Maybe someone in the EU should sue for illegal bundling of Windows 8 with their table/phone. ;-)

Re:Let it begin...

[neokushan]

Truth be told, I expected this to happen. And to be fair to Microsoft, it's not very different to what happens on most other ARM based machines - including Android. The difference is that the Android community, at least, has pushed many manufacturers to at least offer the option of unlocking the devices for tinkering. Microsoft's mandate means that this will never be an option. We may see some Android tablets converted to run Windows ARM, but it'll skirt around too many grey areas of the law to be encouraged. What a damn shame that is, too.

Re:Let it begin...

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe someone in the EU should sue for illegal bundling of Windows 8 with their table/phone. ;-)

... and "table" is totally not a typo, I am obviously talking about the Microsoft Surface... yeah...

Re:Let it begin...

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when was there a UEFI for ARM?

Re:Let it begin...

[Errol backfiring]

How do I vote with my cash? By not being able to buy the computer I want because there is an operating system forced down my throat?

Re:Let it begin...

[unixisc]

I don't think any Android tablets will ever be converted to run WOA. They may be converted to WebOS or Plasma Active or something else, but certainly not WOA. This won't be like PCs, where PCs that were initially offered w/ non-Windows OSs such as OS/2 would be offered w/ Windows if customers were dissatisfied: unlike Wintel, WOA doesn't have all the legacy apps that would have helped it succeed.

I also don't blame MS for using UEFI to lock down phones that are made for their architecture. Let's recognize that most people are not /.ers - the vast majority of them will use what came bundled (which was how IE managed to kick the butt of Netscape Navigator). So if a phone comes w/ WOA, that's what they'll typically use, and if they don't like the experience, they'll either return the phone, or toss it for something else. If MS has been working w/ Nokia and others in making WOA phones, then they certainly don't want end users deleting them and installing Android or WebOS or BBOS on it. Has anybody ever tried deleting iOS from an iPhone and replacing it w/ Android? Didn't think so! I think every phone maker will lock a particular phone w/ the OS it had on the reference design, even if the vendor is making WOA phones, Android phones, Plasma-Active phones and so on. Just like Apple won't put OS-X on an iPad or iOS on an Airbook, other vendors too won't try playing any roulette on phones or tablets.

Re:Let it begin...

[archen]

I was one of the people who stood up and said "Not so fast, everyone - it's mandated that it be enabled by default, but there's nothing to say you can't customise it or disable it"

I think that was one of the points to the people where crying foul. Sure you can customize it or disable it... FOR NOW. Down the road this might not be true once they have their foot in the door. We're down the road now, and lo and behold devices appear where EUFI can't be disabled. Another example for us to keep in mind when we label people/organizations like the EFF as "too paranoid".

Re:Let it begin...

[Anonymous Coward]

>Windows on ARM will demand that UEFI secure boot be enabled and that there is no way to disable it.

This has been covered many times here. It will be up to the EOM to add/publish keys, not Microsoft.

Re:Let it begin...

[neokushan]

Since Microsoft wrote it, themselves. Try reading TFA -

Once we had the tools, we could start porting the Windows boot environment and developing system firmware specifications. We even prototyped the firmware ourselves.

UEFI firmware is the lowest layer of a WOA system and provides consistent services for loading the OS. For WOA, we created firmware to bootstrap the system that we handed off to our partners. WOA systems also include a firmware-based TPM for trusted boot and storage encryption. Using the TPM, for example, we’ve implemented trusted boot which verifies that the system hasn’t been tampered with by malware.

Re:Let it begin...

[neokushan]

The problem, which is what separates the ARM and x86/64 side of things, is that Microsoft allows the x86/64 vendors to do whatever they want as long as certain defaults are met, i.e. UEFI secure boot is enabled by default, but they don't say anything about disabling it or giving the user the option to. In that instance, you very much get a full working PC and if the OEM is nice enough, you'll be able to do whatever you like to the UEFI system - including disabling Secure Boot and inserting your own keys.

However, when it comes to ARM Microsoft is very specific in that they make sure manufacturers do not allow any way to disable Secure Boot. This presumably also includes the ability to insert your own keys and such. The reason this will stay enforced is because the OEM has absolutely no way of servicing their tablet other than via Microsoft's own Windows Update. Even driver updates come through here now, so if an OEM decides to give customers the key to the UEFI lock, Microsoft will disable all support options for that OEM. It's an entirely closed ecosystem with Microsoft completely in control.

Re:Let it begin...

[Daniel Phillips]

I also don't blame MS for using UEFI to lock down phones that are made for their architecture.

I do. I believe it is a transparent attempt to extend their existing market control in desktop operating systems into a new area that they do not control, a violation of the Sherman act, most probably more than one section of the act. Glancing into my crystal ball I see Microsoft back in court, lots of happy lawyers, and some more multi-billion dollar settlement bills.

Re:Let it begin...

[Missing.Matter]

By not being able to buy the computer I want because there is an operating system forced down my throat?

Obviously then it's not the computer you want to buy... Tell me, how exactly do you feel about the iPad coming installed with iOS?

Re:Let it begin...

[Missing.Matter]

UEFI secure boot is enabled by default, but they don't say anything about disabling it or giving the user the option to.

Actually, in the Windows Hardware Certification doc they say "On non-ARM systems, it is required to implement the ability to disable Secure Boot via firmware setup." Page 116

http://download.microsoft.com/download/A/D/F/ADF5BEDE-C0FB-4CC0-A3E1-B38093F50BA1/windows8-hardware-cert-requirements-system.pdf

Re:Let it begin...

[neokushan]

This is actually news to me - thanks! That's how it should be, I do wonder though what the reasons are behind the move - are Microsoft just protecting their own backs for future Windows OS installs (wheras the ARM versions certainly won't be upgraded without new hardware).

Software distribution

[willaien]

I have some serious issues with their software distribution method. I'm seriously considering boycotting Windows 8 entirely - unless forced to use it.

The new metro interface is useless for desktops and laptops, and the one area where it would shine - tablets - is going to be crippled from my perspective.

Flip-Flops

[Anonymous Coward]

Just think of it this way. Windows XP was good. Vista sucked. Windows 7 is pretty nice. Windows 8 will blow. Microsoft just alternates good and bad for their releases. Remember this and you'll be a lot happier and have more realistic expectations.

Re:Flip-Flops

[stx23]

They'll just rename them and you won't realise that Windows Generations is actually Windows 10.

Re:Why is this relevant?

[DickBreath]

> No one will ever use Windows on ARM anyway, so I'm not sure how _any_ news of limitations is relevant.

You are wrong sir. There are Windows fanboys who will use Windows on ARM because, of, um, er..., well, because it is from Microsoft! That's why!

But seriously, see my Chicken and Egg post I wrote a few minutes ago here. I agree. WOA is not going anywhere. Nobody will use it.

Hint: it's the third party apps! Lots of very important legacy business applications are written in languages, tools and technologies that may never be ported to WOA. For example, do you expect Visual Basic 6, Visual FoxPro or Delphi to be on WOA?

This is nothing that wasn't unexpected...

[MrWin2kMan]

There will be TWO Windows experiences: one for ARM-based devices exclusively running Metro applications, and the traditional Windows Desktop (sans Start button) that will run thick apps, traditional Office apps, legacy apps as well as new Metro apps. The Metro UI is strictly a web-like experience. Nothing in it would prevent porting to yet another chip architecture if necessary. If you want to use the touch-friendly Metro interface on your desktop or x64 tablet, you can; but you're not forced to. If you want Office on your Metro, there will be Office 365 as well as the Metro-ized Office apps. This is not much different from what Apple is doing. Both companies will be getting there at about the same time.

Re:This is nothing that wasn't unexpected...

[UnknowingFool]

This is not much different than what Apple is doing.

Technically no, but Apple is making a clear distinctions: iOS is not OS X. The two share the same parent code base but are intended for different platforms with different APIs. With MS, everything must be "Windows" regardless of differences. This is likely to create mass consumer confusion. "But I bought this application for my PC, why doesn't it work on my Windows tablet? It says compatible with Windows 8."

Re:This is nothing that wasn't unexpected...

[shutdown -p now]

There will be TWO Windows experiences: one for ARM-based devices exclusively running Metro applications ... If you want Office on your Metro, there will be Office 365 as well as the Metro-ized Office apps.

Did you RTFA?

Windows-on-ARM will have classic Win7-style desktop, with Explorer, cmd.exe etc. Furthermore, that desktop will have the traditional Office desktop apps (somewhat improved to work better with touch, but it's still Ribbon etc). What it won't have is the ability for any third party to write an ARM application that also uses the classic desktop - apps can only be installed from Windows Store, and Store will only have Metro apps in it. Classic desktop is basically for MS software only.

This is quite different from what was expected by most people - some expected Metro only (as you described), others hoped for full desktop experience.

Re:This is nothing that wasn't unexpected...

[Missing.Matter]

To be fair, Windows 8 and Windows 8 on ARM are still code names. We don't know what the final versions will be called.

Microsoft Brand64 .NET Starter Edition 2012

[Cid Highwind]

Combining both of these decisions under the 'Windows' brand could be disastrous, not because Microsoft is evil, but because it creates two entirely different user experiences on the basis of which ISA your CPU supports.

Microsoft has never had a clue about branding. Look at .NET, they stuck that meaningless label on everything from IDEs to websites to chat clients.

Re:Microsoft Brand64 .NET Starter Edition 2012

[Grishnakh]

They never had much of a clue about marketing either. Remember their MSN marketing campaign about people running around in blue butterfly suits?

Simple solution for X86 apps

[slim]

Install Windows/ARM on a RiscPC.

Acorn's machine had a 486 or 586 as a co-processor, so that RiscOS could host DOS apps running on their native processor.

Re:Simple solution for X86 apps

[unixisc]

This idea was there w/ Apple's first PowerMacs as well - one company - I forget the name - had a PCI card w/ an AMD K5 on it at the time, on which one could, from the MacOS environment, run Wintel apps natively, and they'd be run on this card. It's not a bad solution for a desktop, albeit maybe not cost-effective.

However, for the current generation of ultra-low power saving devices like phones & tablets, which really DO have to run for several hours, that's not an option. Or else, one could just throw in an Atom, or a Via Nano, or some such low end x86 chip to help run Wintel apps where needed.

Like NT/RISC before it...

[unixisc]

Windows 8 on ARM will be an even greater disaster than NT 4.0 on any of the RISC platforms - Alpha, MIPS or PPC - ever were. NT/AXP at least had some presence in the workstation place and at least made an attempt to run Wintel apps via FX!32, but this platform won't even try running Wintel apps, which is what everybody understands Windows apps to be. I'll predict that Windows 8 on ARM will simply kill Windows, since there will be no way for Joe Q Public (i.e. NOT your average /. reader) to tell which box will run their accumulated Windows apps, and which ones won't. Microsoft won't even be able to go BACK to Wintel 7 after that.

Re:Like NT/RISC before it...

[SchroedingersCat]

No, attempting to emulate x86 on RISC was a disaster. Native apps worked reasonably well. Qualifying apps for A platform is not a bad idea. Nobody expects to be able to run Crysis on ARM. I hope Microsoft puts "windows experience index" to a good use and categorize apps based on it.

Re:Like NT/RISC before it...

[0123456]

No, attempting to emulate x86 on RISC was a disaster.

I used to run Word on a 40MHz SPARC. It was not a problem.

CPU-intensive apps will suck in an emulator, but many desktop apps spend 99% of the time waiting for user input, so it doesn't matter if that app that uses 1% of the CPU on a 3GHz i5 requires 20% of the CPU on a 1GHz ARM.

Re:Like NT/RISC before it...

[21mhz]

I'll predict that Windows 8 on ARM will simply kill Windows, since there will be no way for Joe Q Public (i.e. NOT your average /. reader) to tell which box will run their accumulated Windows apps, and which ones won't.

Why, it's easy: here's a desktop box, it can run all your crufty Win32 stuff written in 1998 like it ever did (but we gently encourage you to switch to the new apps which are oh so much more shiny). Here's a sleek tablet, now this runs Windows 8 "Tablet Edition" or whatever they'll call it, and you only install apps from the walled garden.

As to getting enough apps in the garden, it's hard to tell. There is already a growing marketplace of applications for Windows Phone, and that's reportedly going to converge with WinRT by Win8/WP8, becoming effectively a subset of the APIs available for the "big" Windows. I got a Nokia Lumia 800, and I was astonished to find high-quality apps provided by my bank, the local newspaper I read, and my IPTV provider. This being in Finland, perhaps they consider Nokia's large presence on the home market inevitable. But it shows that given enough confidence in the new platform, getting useful applications written for it is no big deal really.

Re:Like NT/RISC before it...

[0123456]

Why, it's easy: here's a desktop box, it can run all your crufty Win32 stuff written in 1998 like it ever did (but we gently encourage you to switch to the new apps which are oh so much more shiny). Here's a sleek tablet, now this runs Windows 8 "Tablet Edition" or whatever they'll call it, and you only install apps from the walled garden.

If I'm switching to a tablet which can't run my old Windows apps... why would I switch to a tablet that runs Windows?

Re:Like NT/RISC before it...

[unixisc]

Native apps are ideal, and if people are not going to have the expectation of running Wintel apps on WOA, there won't be a problem. However, I don't see that happening. And since WOA is not going to run Wintel apps (as opposed to emulating them, at least slowly), for those who expect it to run, it'll be a complete show stopper. In fact, WOA is at a disadvantage even when compared to Android, iOS and Plasma-Active - there are more apps for these platforms than there will be for WOA, unless MS ports a shit-load of their applications to WOA.

Re:Like NT/RISC before it...

[xigxag]

Why are uninformed FUD comments like this getting modded up? The blogpost clearly states that WOA devices will be unequivocally labelled to strongly distinguish them from traditional x86/64 devices.

WOA is not an attempt to replace Windows with a gimped version of itself. It's meant to be another member of the Windows family, like Windows Server, Windows Phone, etc., that extends the basic Windows paradigm to devices where it does not have significant market share. It is basically a rearchitected Windows CE that takes into account the rise of iOS.

iOS is derived from OSX, but you wouldn't expect to run an OSX application on iOS. So Joe Q Public is already primed to the idea that top-tier desktop applications won't run on WOA, and from reading the article, it seems that the marketing of the tablet devices will make that abundantly clear. Windows 8 Desktop is the successor to Windows 7 and WOA is something different, a competitor to iOS that has a Windows-esque look and feel.

Where WOA claims to have an advantage over iOS is, first, that it will allow users interact with the device with a traditional desktop paradigm, if they choose. Secondly, WOA apps, unlike iOS apps, will be also able to be run on your traditional desktop/laptop, making for a much more integrated total experience. And thirdly and most importantly, MS Office.

However, if the concept of being able to "up-run" your tablet apps on your desktop proves fruitful, there's no engineering reason why Apple couldn't do the same thing. And of course, once Apple did do it, suddenly up-running your apps would be the most awesomeish thing ever.

Re:Like NT/RISC before it...

[21mhz]

If I'm switching to a tablet which can't run my old Windows apps... why would I switch to a tablet that runs Windows?

Presumably because the tablet software is good on its own merit? The current Windows Phone UI may work better for some people than whatever the diverse Android ecosystem has fermented so far.

Then, there's a question of which device works best with Microsoft-provided server infrastructure. Again, WP already has the best integration among smartphones with Exchange, Lync, Office 365, and Sharepoint. So there may finally be a solution for corporate sysadmins to counter the BYOD fad without forcing everybody to use tired Blackberrys.

Re:Like NT/RISC before it...

[im_thatoneguy]

The advantage of Win8 over iOS too is that you can run the same apps on both if they are metro (which Microsoft is pushing heavily for future consumer applications.)

You can't buy an app for OSX and have it for iOS. Every app you buy for WOA will be available on your x86 pc too.

Re:Like NT/RISC before it...

[unixisc]

There is nothing uninformed about my comment above, although whether it's FUD or not is something anybody can decide. Simple question - will it be called 'Windows ____' or not? TFA suggests that it will be - for this story, the term 'Windows on ARM', or WOA was used. And that's precisely what I was going at - given the way Windows has been marketed to the public since 1995, whenever an average Joe - not someone here on /. - sees 'Windows' on any electronic device, what does he assume? That it'll run all the Windows apps that he has @ home, whether it's bought, borrowed, pirated, or whatever. The moment you bust that bubble, he won't be interested. Besides, now, people will be expected to say things like 'Windows 8 Desktop Edition' and 'Windows 8 Compact Edition' to mean Windows compatible Windows and Windows incompatible Windows. Brilliant!

As discussed elsewhere in this page, MS did a reasonably good job w/ XBox, which they didn't call 'Windows Gaming Console', which would have been perfectly valid when they first came out w/ it, given that it was based on a Pentium III Coppermine CPU. So they could have done something similar here - in fact, since they are calling the new UI Metro, they could have called the ARM version of the OS metro as well. In fact, the OS-X/iOS example you gave does precisely that - b'cos the branding is so different, and the iPhone and iPad did not come out w/ the Mac name (and luckily, iBook fell under the RADAR), nobody expected them to run Mac apps. Therefore, even though Macs were based on PPC and x64, iPads and iPhones can be based on the A4s and A5s w/o raising the same expectations, even though iOS may have been created from OS-X. Microsoft could have done just this - call their new ARM OS Metro, and only give THAT the Metro UX, and the Wintel version of the OS, just call THAT Windows 8, and leave it w/ the Windows 7 UI, which believe me, is just perfect for desktops. As it is, the UI - particularly the Control Panel, changed a lot from XP to Vista, so the last thing we need is something new from 7 to 8.

Your citation of WOA claims that its apps, unlike iOS apps, will be able to be run on a traditional (presumably non-ARM) laptop or desktop is what sounds more like FUD to me, unless Windows 8 Desktop edition is going to include in itself an ARM emulator that will run those ARM binaries. If MS is the author, I don't doubt that they'll compile them for both. But the same goes for Apple - Safari runs on both, and if Apple wants, they can port Pages, Keynote and Numbers to OS-X. But the compiling will have to be done - Wintel won't run WOA binaries any more than OS-X will run iOS binaries. Unless Wintel 8 will include an emulator.

As far as up-running tablet apps on the desktops go, Apple already creates fat binaries when they compile their apps. But nowhere is there the expectation that something written for an iPad will work on an Airbook, b'cos nobody thinks of an Airbook as an iPad. However, if someone thinks of a Windows 8 Compact app not running on a Windows 8 desktop, unless emulated, or unless recompiled, it's going to sound a lot more confusing, not to mention stranger, than an iOS app not running under OS-X.

Re:Like NT/RISC before it...

[Belial6]

Exactly. When FX!32 was attempted, they were in an era when no CPU was fast enough to run what people wanted running native. Emulation made a CPU that was too slow to begin with, unusably slow. Even worse, they rolled it out to markets that were pushing the already too slow processors the hardest.

Today, we have a different situation. Today, for most users, CPUs have been more than fast enough for half a decade or more. We are also talking about a use case where the software is less demanding.

So the one thing I was interested in..

[Anonymous Coward]

Synchronization between Desktop and Mobile, the one reason I might have considered switching to a Windows phone... isn't there. Great job, Microsoft.

Don't see the problem here

[Zouden]

People don't buy an iPad expecting to be able to run Mac OS software (okay, some might), so it's just a matter for Microsoft's marketing division to come up with a brand that identifies WOA as being related to Windows but not quite the same thing. That's their problem though.

There'll always be an x86 Windows that can run x86 software. The introduction of a separate branch of Windows doesn't change that.

Re:Don't see the problem here

[robmv]

iPad is not called MacBook. People will read Tablet with Windows 8 for ARM and will think perfectly a Windows version I can run on my arm an not on my desktop, now I can run all my applications on the move with a trendy tablet. Do you plan to train all those people in what is a microprocessor architecture and why one can not run applications for the other ones. MS should use another or fail, If the XBox was called Windows Gaming Console it could have failed

Re:Don't see the problem here

[recoiledsnake]

From FA:

While not the topic of this post, we do want to assure you that, when a consumer buys a WOA PC, it will be clearly labeled and branded so as to avoid potential confusion with Windows 8 on x86/64. The PC will come with the OS preinstalled, and all drivers and supporting software. WOA will not be available as a software-only distribution, so you never have to worry about which DVD to install and if it will work on a particular PC.

Re:Don't see the problem here

[robmv]

And you believe that, I have Windows Starter stories flashbacks, people cursing starter because they did not know it was so limited, If it is named Windows 8 , it is the same over again

Re:Don't see the problem here

[unixisc]

This is a fantastic point. The first edition of the XBox, IIRC, had a Pentium in it, so had it been called a Windows Gaming console, it could have at least run some Windows applications, but MS didn't do it that way. So later, when they switched to PPC, they didn't have a problem.

Apple got the branding right - nobody thinks of iDevices as Macs. If MS wanted to go to ARM, they could have come up w/ a new and catchy brand name that people might have preferred to Android, and not mucked w/ the Windows name. Similarly, why ruin a perfectly good UI which has been by & large consistent since Windows 95? Or, if they HAD TO leverage the Windows brand name, they should have stuck to the x86 and told Intel, AMD and Via that they were the only welcome guests to the platform party.

Instead, by doing what they're doing, not only are they ruining the chances for the new platform, but they are destroying the Windows brand in a manner that even their worse critics couldn't.

Re:Don't see the problem here

[UnknownSoldier]

> but they are destroying the Windows brand in a manner that even their worse critics couldn't.
Agreed.

> Similarly, why ruin a perfectly good UI which has been by & large consistent since Windows 95?
Two points:

- Windows is NOT a good UI. While the problem is that every GUI sucks to some extent-- Windows, OSX, and all the various flavors of Window Managers atop X stink -- MS's version is slightly worse then everyone else's. They basically sat on their asses from about 1995 to ~2005 offering no new functionality aside from stupid skinning. Look how long it took them to add basic taskbar shuffle ( http://nerdcave.webs.com/ ) to Vista. Win 7 adds a few new features but compared to other Window Managers it is still a toy.

- Consistent? You ever tried looking at the control panel for each Windows version? MS doesn't understand the first thing about consistency. Go compare Apple's System Preferences between all the various 10.x versions. Microsoft has no holistic vision.

Re:Don't see the problem here

[unixisc]

Even if one agrees that Windows is not a good UI, the least that can be said for it is that since Windows 95, it had a more or less predictable UI. You had the Start button @ the south west end of the screen, a single or 2 column blow-up if it was clicked or the Windows logo button was pressed, a My Computer, My Network and My Documents links on it. Yeah, there were additions later, such as My Pictures, My Music, Favorites and so on, but if one was used to any of the Windows versions, one could work w/ the next. Some of the changes were questionable, like the Active Desktop in Windows 98, which MS later dropped (I actually liked the Address toolbar that one could have in Windows 98). Control panel was more or less consistent up to XP, but in Vista onwards, they changed the whole thing. But the variations b/w all these Windows versions were diddley compared to the overhaul that will be Metro!

Having said all that, I agree w/ you that Apple does it better.

Before you jump on them about the UX

[MikeRT]

Consider the fact that there are no mass market ARM-based desktop PCs. It's not like Dell is offering a low-end dual CPU ARM offering and Microsoft is doing their best Montgomery Burns impression at the suggestion that it be given a full desktop. Personally, I am not sure I'd want a Windows 7-like UI on a tablet (not sure I'd want Metro either, but that's beside the point).

Re:Before you jump on them about the UX

[tepples]

Some steps toward the mass-market ARM desktop are being taken. First, stick out your tongue, close your lips gently over it, and blow. Second, load this page and sing along. You just made a raspberry and sang an approximation of pi.

But more seriously, as Google TV and Android merge, there won't really be a difference between a "smart TV" and an ARM powered all-in-one PC.

This is micsoroft iOS.

[Alkonaut]

So it has little in common with "Windows". This won't be what you use to run "Windows" on your new arm ultraportable. This is what you use when you run some metro-esque OS on a tablet.

The difference between Win8-ARM on a device/appliance is to Windows on a laptop/desktop what iOS on an iPad is to MacOS on a macintosh laptop. All this talk about walled gardens aside, I can see the point of having a very protected environment for computers that are appliances more related to my toaster than they are to my old desktop computer. I don't want to care about device drivers when Win8 runs in my TV, phone or tablet. It must just work, even if it means I can't install my old applications. If I want a computer where I can do anything I want, I get a computer. In this case that happens to mean my computer has to be x86 and my appliances have to be ARM. So be it. It almost certainly was going to be that way for the foreseeable future anyway.

I can't really blame microsoft for making this decision. They don't want to wall in windows users, they want to win over some iOS users with iPad. Maybe on Win9 or Win10 we'll do all our computing in the walled garden. But lets cross that bridge when we get ther.

Re:This is micsoroft iOS.

[Anonymous Coward]

So it has little in common with "Windows". This won't be what you use to run "Windows" on your new arm ultraportable. This is what you use when you run some metro-esque OS on a tablet.

Except for you'll still havehave the 256MB+ hulking-gorilla of a kernel running in memory at all time. Quietly "sipping" power.

Oh yeah, and we've disabled being able to close programs.

Re:This is micsoroft iOS.

[Mithent]

Both platforms will run Metro applications, though, and Microsoft sees users using predominantly Metro apps as the future of Windows. Metro UI isn't an optional, Media Center-like feature on desktop x86/x64 versions of Windows 8 which is targeted primarily at ARM, or even at tablets - it's the default UI everywhere, with the traditional desktop relegated to a load-on-demand alternative. Sure, Microsoft can't kill the desktop because abolishing all backwards compatibility would be a disaster. But Metro apps are what they eventually see most users spending most of their time using, and they run on both x86 and ARM, and are distributed the same way.

So, yeah, they are different for now due to differential support for legacy/traditional applications, but Microsoft intends for there to be an equivalent experience on both platforms in the future as Metro takes over as the standard UI. I'm not so sure about their vision myself, but that seems to be the way it's going.

Re:This is micsoroft iOS.

[DeathFromSomewhere]

Just correcting a misconception here. The amount of RAM in use has no effect on power usage. RAM takes electricity whether it contains useful information or not.

Re:Why is this relevant?

[WrongSizeGlass]

Hint: it's the third party apps! Lots of very important legacy business applications are written in languages, tools and technologies that may never be ported to WOA. For example, do you expect Visual Basic 6, Visual FoxPro or Delphi to be on WOA?

No VB 6 & FP emulator on WOA? That's gotta be a deal breaker for some of us.

Re:Why is this relevant?

[dimeglio]

I hope confusing clients is a proven marketing tactic because MS is going at it full force.

HP Touchpad

[Anonymous Coward]

But can I install Windows 8 on my Touchpad?

Re:HP Touchpad

[unixisc]

Why, what's wrong w/ WebOS?

Ah,

[ledow]

So it's Windows CE then?

Thanks for the clarification but I'd suspected that all along. Windows is only "Windows" on your PC. No change at all, to anything, then.

Re:Ah,

[shutdown -p now]

No, it has nothing to do with Windows CE. Did you even see the screenshots in the original blog post? You know, the ones with Explorer and Task Manager and Office on them?

"It's hard to under-emphasize..."

[Anonymous Coward]

"It's hard to under-emphasize just how huge a change that is."

That's a relief. I thought for a moment is might be important.

Re:Why is this relevant?

[sed quid in infernos]

A hybrid device, like an Asus Transformer, that allows me to run a full version of Office that works well with a mouse and keyboard on a portable device that has the media consumption abilities I use a tablet for (video, music, books, comics) and has battery sufficient for 8 to 12 hours use? Yes, please.

It remains to be seen if MS and the hardware providers can deliver that, but there are significant professional use cases for such a device, in addition to the obvious consumer ones. Especially if document folders sync transparently.

Sure, I'd prefer it if the device could have a real intel chip, so I could run all my software. But that seems at least one chip generation away.

Re:because it has been so bad for iOS

[Gaygirlie]

You're completely missing the point there, mate. May I suggest working on your reading-comprehension?

Thats OK with me

[jampola]

I had no intention of running Win8 on my RasberryPi anyway!

Base it on x64

[unixisc]

The only way OEMs who are making Windows 8 phones and tablets can save themselves - and in the process Microsoft as well - is build their phones around Fusion, Medfield and any other x86 compabible CPUs that anyone might make. That way, ISVs can at least make an attempt to allow their Wintel titles to be installed on tablets, and as far as phones go, ISVs might allow client sides of client-server apps to be supported on Windows 8 phones.

For instance, lets say a company has SharePoint running on its servers, and its employees all have SharePoint access on their laptops. Now that company may have off-site employees (such as Sales personnel) having Windows 8 tablets, and onsite executives w/ Windows 8 phones, who may need to check into the VPN and access their SharePoint data @ different places. That is one of the few places where it could make sense to prefer Windows 8 to iPads or Androids, since there is an issue of compatibility w/ office software that comes in.

But all this would work IFF the Windows 8 tablets and phones would be x86 based, which would minimize any work needed to support the organizations existing software infrastructure. But if they base it on ARM, such a plan would be a non-starter.

Re:Base it on x64

[DickBreath]

Even if they did all you say, which I generally agree with, I don't think it would save them.

The basic problem is that Microsoft has recognized that the world is, in fact, really, changing. But they have recognized it far, far too late.

Re:Base it on x64

[unixisc]

If by 'save', you mean 'get back their monopoly', then I agree w/ you - they won't. But if they're entering this market - where the value added by them is debatable - the above is the only way I can see that they can introduce something that's at least targets a certain niche, and is not completely irrelevant. Having Windows 8 phones & tablets that can work in corporate environs w/ their in-house apps, and therefore basing them on x86, would at least enable them to be a Blackberry replacement, if not more. But just coming up w/ WOA won't even do that for such customers - why should a corporate setting dump their Android/ARM phones for WOA phones?

Re:Base it on x64

[Belial6]

It really isn't too late. The world is change, true. Just like when the personal computer was introduced, the winner will likely be the company that shoots themselves in the foot the least times.

The fact that none of the portable OSes have integrated screen sharing clients built in is an indicator that they are all ready to shoot themselves in the foot. A headless server at home with integrated remote desktop would make any one of these portable OSes desktop replacements over night.

Re:Obvious *benefit* is the drivers

[sunderland56]

Drivers are the largest problem with x86 Windows - well over 50% of the stability problems and blue screens come from badly written drivers. Microsoft has a process to submit a driver to their labs for testing and approval today - but (a) they make it insanely difficult and expensive, and (b) the market doesn't care whether a driver is approved or not.

Drivers are also the largest security hole there is - a kernel module has full and complete access to your system. People claim to be concerned about security, but then install third party drivers without a second thought.

Overall, it looks like Microsoft is doing exactly what people have been asking for - a more secure Windows environment. Locking down software to approved sources only, and getting rid of creakingly old APIs that date back to Windows 3.1, will make it faster, more stable, and more secure - but now people are complaining.

Note that for the hardware/software developers - hobbyist or professional - there will be a developer switch, to turn off security and allow you to load unsigned/unapproved programs and drivers.

Windows 8 & Unity

[assertation]

I could be wrong, but the preview shot I saw of Windows 8 with the missing "start" button makes it look like Microsoft is trying to do the same thing as Canonical.

I'm guessing neither org wants to look like it has the same old frumpy desktop.

If that doesn't work, Canonical is only 1 6 month release away from going back to something more PC and keyboard friendly. Microsoft on the other hand will have a much harder mess to clean up from.

Re:Windows 8 & Unity

[Anonymous Coward]

The "Start" button had been replaced for a generic button with the Windows logo since Windows Vista. What is gone in Windows 8 is the menu that pops up when you click on that button, instead replaced by the full screen monstrosity that is Metro.

Re:Windows 8 & Unity

[unixisc]

They do not use the word 'Start' there, but the function is the same, and it's identical to the way that button used to work under XP. Just some things have changed - the 'Run' box is gone and replaced by a search box (you can still type cmd there and invoke a DOS command prompt box), and the Control Panel has been changed beyond recognition. But in Windows 8, Metro looks like it will be the only UI, which will be forced on users, and that's what's so unacceptable. XP allowed people to use the classic interface, and so does Windows 7 (7 however doesn't offer the XP interface, which is strange). But w/ 8, MS decided to deny people the right to use the old UX.

Re:Windows 8 & Unity

[DeathFromSomewhere]

The windows 7 style desktop is still in both the ARM and x86 versions. What this article is pointing out is that only a select few apps will be able to run on the desktop on ARM. x86 desktop remains more or less unchanged.

Re:Windows 8 & Unity

[unixisc]

That doesn't seem correct - everything I've read suggests that Windows 8 will have only 1 UX - the Metro UX. The Windows 7 UX will be gone. If the latter was available even as a secondary option, if not default, I doubt that half the people would have had a problem w/ it.

Re:Windows 8 & Unity

[perryizgr8]

go and read the blog.

Point of no return

[unixisc]

There may not be a Windows 9 if Microsoft blows this one, since it will permanently throw a question-mark on the Windows brand on whether a particular Windows from Microsoft runs Windows applications or not. The same problem that Linux has - where certain applications can't be installed on certain combinations of the Linux kernel & libraries based on certain dependencies - but only worse: w/ the Linux case, one can at least get all the versions of every library that may be needed, but there will be no way of making Wintel apps run on ARM.

Re:Point of no return

[recoiledsnake]

From the FA:

While not the topic of this post, we do want to assure you that, when a consumer buys a WOA PC, it will be clearly labeled and branded so as to avoid potential confusion with Windows 8 on x86/64. The PC will come with the OS preinstalled, and all drivers and supporting software.

You've made a number of argumentative comments(read, trollish) on this article, but you haven't even RTFA, like a typical anti-MSFT troll.

Re:Point of no return

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus. WOA is going to create an entirely new market in stores like Best Buy. You are looking at the 720 in 100M+ Living rooms, Win8 in most Enterprises and a combo of x86/ARM tablets in 1.2B user's hands. Yet, somehow MSFT is going to permanently screw the pooch? Didn't even mention Office 15, O365, Phone and Skype. I am going to guess most of you don't work for in the technology sector or a Fortune 500 company or live in the Industrialized World.

I don't get the blind hate and ignorance of some of you. Do you just want to remain poor?

Re:Point of no return

[unixisc]

Since you've noted what I've written elsewhere, read what I've written precisely in response to your above citation - namely the ones headlined 'WOA PCs? Woah!'. Nowhere in TFA did I read anything to the effect that it won't be called 'Windows', which if they did, would be the only thing saving their desktop business.

Re:Why is this relevant?

[DickBreath]

> That's gotta be a deal breaker for some of us.

Don't know if you're being sarcastic. It is a deal breaker for some. While VB6, VFP etc may not be sexy, a lot of legacy software are written in those.

Re:Why is this relevant?

[unixisc]

Nokia has been marketing the hell out of Lumia, but I haven't seen too many of those around.

The War on General Purpose Computing

[volts]

This is part of an emerging pattern in which consumers are sold restricted systems with enforced toll collection. Cory Doctorow refers to this as "the coming war on general-purpose computing". His analysis is thought provoking. It is disheartening to consider how may technologies with security benefits can also be used to restrict the rights of customers.

Re:The War on General Purpose Computing

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

What should be more thought provoking isn't that the general public hasn't grasped why general purpose computing is important but why we have failed to make the case as to why general purpose computing is *better*.

People go to restaurants! Must be a war against home cooking.

It's ridiculous.

well you can't go to far as lot's of old software

[Joe_Dragon]

well you can't go to far as lot's of old software is still out there and locked down app stores may end up with 1st amendment issues.

Now it's on thing to lock down carp apps that just crash all the time but it's a other to do content bans.

Also there may need to be more then 1 app store / a 100% free for dev's way to push out free app's.

Re:Why is this relevant?

[DickBreath]

Speaking of professional use cases. Do you think software such as AutoCAD, or Adobe Creative Suite, or um, Maya, or other highly vertical application software will be ported to WOA?

Platforms like Android and iOS, which are already entrenched (and have actual devices today like the Asus Transformer), are suddenly at a huge competitive advantage in attracting third party developers. If Microsoft is making you re-think your application for WOA, then why not also re-think it for Android / iOS which already have the momentum?

over / under

[Anonymous Coward]

"It's hard to under-emphasize just how huge a change that is".

But is it hard to over-emphasize?

Re:Why is this relevant?

[NatasRevol]

The new, more identifiable 800 & 900 models aren't even for sale yet...

Re:because it has been so bad for iOS

[unixisc]

There hasn't been as big a legacy apps issue w/ Macs the way there has been w/ Windows, probably due to the fact that Apple has undergone some major transitions in the same time that Wintel apps have just been accumulating. First they had 68k -> PPC, then they had MacOS -> OS-X, then they had PPC -> x64. Also, the people who came to the iPhone and iPad were not necessarily Mac users - I'll doubt that even the majority are - but came from other places. I can easily see that people who were users of the iPod Touch would easily have gone to the iPhone, and similarly, people who used the iPhone would have something additional from the iPad. Also, given that once you get an iPad, that's all you need to get all the software you need is a huge advantage. I do agree that the lack of USB connections to things like, say, printers, is a problem, but aside from that, the majority of iPad or iPhone owners probably don't even own a Mac for this to be a big issue.

With Windows, the brand association is different. When you give somebody a device that runs Windows, the expectation WILL BE that it will run Wintel apps. And once a new experience is introduced in the market that it doesn't, it'll sink the Windows brand like nothing else ever could. Does one think that the average Joe is going to ask - is there an ARM or an Atom in this sheet? Once that level of uncertainity is introduced, it will do more damage to the Windows brand than even the Feds intervening & splitting up MS ever could. The latter wouldn't change the meaning of whether Windows boxes can run Windows apps, but this one definitely would!

Zune.

[Daniel Phillips]

Zune.

Re:Zune.

[unixisc]

Okay, clue me in... I've never figured out - what's the difference b/w Zune and Microsoft Media Player?

Re:Zune.

[SuricouRaven]

Zune was a hardware initiative - the idea being to compete with Apple's highly successful model of a music store (iTunes) and music player (iPod) closely tied together, each promoting the other, as well as to unify Microsoft's then-bewildering selection of incompatable DRM solutions supported by WMP so that customers could be sure that if they had a Zune player and brought music from the Zune store they would be compatible.

It was a commercial failure. Vestiges of the project remain in the xbox store, but the player itsself is dead.

Re:Zune.

[Missing.Matter]

Zune : Windows Media Player :: iTunes : Quick Time

Re:Zune.

[DickBreath]

> Zune.

Plays For Sure.

I DO see the problem here

[DickBreath]

http://www.asymco.com/2012/01/17/the-rise-and-fall-of-personal-computing/

I'm not holding funeral services for the PC just yet.

Eventually the traditional PC will be gone. Not that we won't have comfortable workstations with big screens, keyboard and a mouse. It's just that the platform, and especially its OS will be different. And that screen will be a touchscreen. And it will also have voice recognition.

In particular, look at those graphs in the article. They tell quite a story. Consider that first and last graph especially. Consider that those are logarithmic scales. That means that the iOS / Android devices have rocketed to large numbers faster than anything in history. It is easy to see that by vast numbers alone they will soon eclipse traditional PC's. Just last week I was reading how Microsoft's sales of Windows are down, and they blame it on declining sales of PC's.

I don't know iOS numbers, but I do know that Android devices exceed 250 Million with over 700,000 new activations per day (or over 8 per second).

The entire computing landscape has changed before and it will change again. Not overnight. There is not a bright line you can point to and say that is the day it changed. It's just gradual continuous change. A blur. A gradient.

Also, Steve Jobs was right and was able to avoid the innovator's dilemma. Ignore the Android line. Look at the iPad / iPhone lines compared to Mac. He was right to recognize, acknowledge and not be in denial about it -- the innovator's dilemma. ("we can't build the new platform because it will cannibalize the existing profitable platform.")

Something else to notice about those graphs: PC's are getting very flat. Mac still have a significant upward trajectory.

Basically: things are changing. I think WOA signals that Microsoft recognizes this, and is floundering around trying to do something about it, and will ultimately fail. This should not be a surprise. Microsoft has passed its middle age and is moving into its golden years. :-)

WinRT is the common API

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the big deal? WinRT is the Arm/x86 common API for creating compiled modules.

We're focusing on that for the creation of tablet versions.

And Kindle Fire

[tepples]

Those Android activations are mainly for smartphones and not tablets.

Shouldn't you be including Kindle Fire tablets in your tally, even if they can't run Market-exclusive applications? Or by "activations" should one read only "cellular activations"?

Maybe I'm reading it wrong...

[HerculesMO]

But if you develop your apps in WinRT, the same code will be able to compile into ARM or x86. I don't see a big deal, honestly. It's not like it will take developers extra work, since .NET and the JIT compiler should handle that workload. In fact, it makes Windows a more appealing development environment because you're hitting multiple platforms, form factors, etc... all with a single set of code.

But correct me if I misread.

Re:Maybe I'm reading it wrong...

[jader3rd]

You're correct. The source of many of the comments here proclaiming the death of Windows are that many slashdotters firmly believe that people only use Windows for programs which were written for Windows 3.1. Since that code won't run a certain SKU of Windows they're positive that that fact will for sure prevent anyone from purchasing a copy of Windows ever again. They don't concider the possibility that there could be people out there actively developing for Windows right now, and that someone might possibly write an app for WinRT which will work on all future copies of Windows.

Re:Maybe I'm reading it wrong...

[HerculesMO]

And all distros of Windows (Phone/Server/Desktop/ARM) as well.

That was my point though -- I think this is actually a benefit to the Windows ecosystem, and since the new version of .NET should allow people to take their projects, import them, and recompile for the next version... it will be easy to get started. Granted, non .NET apps will have to migrate if they want to use ARM, but if they move over "as-is" they will still work as good as they do now.

There's really no downside.

User-mode drivers

[tepples]

Drivers are also the largest security hole there is - a kernel module has full and complete access to your system.

Then perhaps Microsoft should expand its own user-mode driver framework instead of running all drivers in kernel mode and monopolizing their distribution. At least under Linux, device classes with user-mode drivers include printers (CUPS), scanners (SANE), video (X), and even installable file systems (FUSE).

Re:User-mode drivers

[Chokolad]

> At least under Linux, device classes with user-mode drivers include printers (CUPS), scanners (SANE), video (X), and even installable file systems (FUSE).

Imagine that, most of this is also running in user-mode in Windows.

Re:User-mode drivers

[Anonymous Coward]

Except there's still parts unnecessarily shoved down the kernel mode, like the infamous win32k.sys

It would be kinda like X doing basic blits and what-not in ring 0.

Re:User-mode drivers

[jamesh]

Drivers are also the largest security hole there is - a kernel module has full and complete access to your system.

Then perhaps Microsoft should expand its own user-mode driver framework instead of running all drivers in kernel mode and monopolizing their distribution. At least under Linux, device classes with user-mode drivers include printers (CUPS), scanners (SANE), video (X), and even installable file systems (FUSE).

UMDF

Re:User-mode drivers

[tepples]

its own user-mode driver framework

UMDF

Which is exactly what I was referring to. Input devices in particular aren't in UMDF.

Re:Why is this relevant?

[sed quid in infernos]

No to AutoCAD and Maya, probably no to full versions of ACS (but maybe a lighter suite). If this works for Microsoft, I think it will work like this: some people who want to travel light but want full Office productivity will buy WOA devices. This popularity will spur app development, including some enterprise integration. Developers will start releasing more apps for Win8 (which, remember, will also work on new Intel/AMD Win8 machines, so there will quickly be a large installed base).

Android and iOs have had years to get a decent office app out; they haven't done it yet. And a big part of this is good mouse/keyboard interface - drag and drop, mouse-click-popup menus, consistent highlighting/copy/paste, etc. So if MS gets a 12 month lead on real Office software, it might overcome the iOs/Android head start for a certain class of users.

Note the "If" at the start of my speculation. I don't know if this will happen, but it seems more than just possible.

how is this different

[ILongForDarkness]

WOA will likely be for iPad knockoffs and the like. MS is just making a "AppStore" for those types of users. Heck Win 8 will have access to the "AppStore" on windows 8 as well making it an identical experience as the appstore on the OS X Lion. MS is really really trying to push apps so they can catch up to Apple on cool factor, can skim a percentage of everything and can have all the joy of being a gatekeeper for the platform. Their trying to make the arguement "why wouldn't you target WinRT and get everyone rather than Win32 and only get Intel/desktop people?".

Re:Why is this relevant?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, it will only be $2000.

no surprise here

[Anonymous Coward]

This is old news guys. I knew about it for about 4 month and I am just a regular geek.

.NET Framework and .NET Passport

[tepples]

Microsoft has never had a clue about branding. Look at .NET, they stuck that meaningless label on everything from IDEs to websites to chat clients.

Really there were only two things that were ever called .NET: the .NET Framework and .NET Passport authentication. The ".NET" IDEs were IDEs supporting the CLR languages that work with the .NET Framework. The ".NET" web sites and chat client supported Passport and have since been renamed to "Windows Live".

Re:.NET Framework and .NET Passport

[zootie]

I seem to recall Windows 2003 was branded "Windows .Net" for a short while.

Re:.NET Framework and .NET Passport

[Cid Highwind]

Right, the same name was on two completely different galaxies of things, one developer-facing and one consumer-facing, with no (or no effective) attempt at explaining why they were under one brand.

They tried the tactic Apple took with the iPrefix products/services, but didn't have the marketing skill to pull it off.

under-emphasize? You mean it's not important?

[blackfrancis75]

FTFS:

It's hard to under-emphasize just how huge a change that is.

This literally means it's difficult to describe this change to make it sound less important than it actually is.
I believe you mean the opposite, that it's hard to over-emphasise (ie: make it sound more important than it is; because it's so important)

Re:Why is this relevant?

[SadButTrue]

The 800 has been on sale in Nokia's strongest smartphone markets since november. The 900 is the exact same phone with a larger screen and FFC. It will change nothing.

And also doesn't have a warchest

[Anonymous Coward]

Nor licensing deals that they can change further if the Arm machine distributors don't play ball with Microsoft.

Hence, still a Borg Icon worthy assimilation attempt.

Android has an OOM killer

[tepples]

Except for you'll still havehave the 256MB+ hulking-gorilla of a kernel

I thought WinRT had been made smaller than that.

Oh yeah, and we've disabled being able to close programs.

Why should one need to close a program instead of relying on an OOM killer like Android's? First, processes with no visible windows and no "services" (background tasks that have registered themselves to handle requests from other apps or the system) go. Then those with services go.

Why no emulation.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not quite sure why they don't provide an optional emulation layer for the older legacy apps, should be a straight forward thing in their store, they could even make it a recommend app/update. I would just recommend they have emulator switch off when its not needed to save power.

Re:well you can't go to far as lot's of old softwa

[tepples]

The U.S. Constitution gives you the right to free speech. It doesn't necessarily give you the right to free speech using Microsoft or Apple products. You in theory have the right to manufacture your own tablet through which to speak.

Please wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows on Arm = Slooooooow...

Re:Please wait...

[Anthony Mouse]

Windows on Arm = Slooooooow...

Does that really surprise anyone? Half the failure of Vista was because it was too slow. Windows 7 isn't really any faster, it's just that we now have Core processors with 4GB+ of RAM instead of Pentium 4s with ~1GB.

But current ARM processors are slower than late model Pentium 4s and have less memory. What did people expect was going to happen?

Re:Please wait...

[DeathFromSomewhere]

[Citation Needed]

Seriously. No one other then OEMs have their hands on them yet. How do you know this?

Re:Please wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows 7 isn't really any faster, it's just that we now have Core processors with 4GB+ of RAM instead of Pentium 4s with ~1GB.

Not entirely true. I've seen Vista and 7 on the same hardware, and the former is almost always much slower than the latter. Sometimes a little, usually a lot.

Re:Please wait...

[hairyfeet]

i'm sorry but you are incorrect. I ran Vista on what was a pretty nice machine at the time, an Intel Pentium D 2.66Ghz, 2Gb of RAM, and a Geforce 7600GS and the thing was a dog, it would have "senior moments" and forget the network shares and not see them before being rebooted, would drag down the entire system when doing simple multitasking like watching a movie while doing a file transfer, and this was seen all the way through SP1 which is when i finally gave up on the POS. Now that exact same machine is running Win 7 Home and has been since Oct 09, and its fast, it runs great on the network, nothing about the hardware has been changed, still the same Pentium D, still the same GPU, same everything but when I use that machine its like night and day. The performance of Vista was so bad it got to be a running joke at the shop, when someone would come in with Vista we'd say "I'm sorry" and make a little tisk tisk noise. Take any of those machines and slap Win 7 on them (which I have done quite often) and all I get from customers is "Wow, this is like a new machine, thanks!". so calling Win 7 no better than Vista is simply incorrect, its like saying WinXP is no better than WinME, there really is no comparison.

As for win 8, anybody smell that? that stench of fail that is practically leaking from the thing like a silent but deadly fart? I've been running the dev preview on an Athlon X2 i have sitting in the corner of the shop, now this baby has 3gb of RAM, fast 200gb SATA, its not a bad machine at all, but everyone who has tried it, more than 200 so far, has HATED IT with a capital H! this is the same stupidity we saw with winMo only in reverse, instead of tying the desktop metaphor to mobile we are seeing the mobile metaphor tied to desktop and its still a failwhale. Honestly after spending 3 days with it as my primary OS I couldn't stand it anymore, without a touchscreen its just painful to use.

And what person is gonna want a Win 8 ARM that doesn't run Windows programs? THIS, this right here, is the reason we need to call Captain Obvious to save the day. MSFT simply refuses to believe that the ONLY reason people use Windows is WINDOWS PROGRAMS which as we see in TFA simply won't run on ARM. Here we see MSFT vainly believe if they Ape the Apple philosophy they can get Apple iMoney, but its so full of fail its unreal. Without the lock on x86 people simply won't buy windows, and why should they? apple has nicer designs, android is cheaper, they have NO selling point for Win 8. Mark my words its gonna make Vista look like 95, its gonna go down so hard it'll finally kill those WinME and Bob jokes. in the future people will say "Its a Win 8 level of fail!" to describe projects that have no chance. maybe we'll get lucky and this turkey will get Ballmer finally fired and they can bring Allchin or Ozzie back to right the ship, because this is just a disaster and even the shills like the Yahoo product girl, whose answer to every product is "Buy it! Buy it now!" said of Win 8" Uhhh...wait until you get something with a touchscreen before getting it" which for her was the equivalent of "My eyes! The goggles they do nothing!"

Re:Please wait...

[nightfell]

Here we see MSFT vainly believe if they Ape the Apple philosophy they can get Apple iMoney, but its so full of fail its unreal.

If MS were to really ape Apple, they'd drop the Windows UI from the tablet version of Windows, and not put the whole tablet UI into the desktop version of Windows. MS is too insecure about leaving behind their highly successful Windows product when it comes to devices for which Windows itself makes no damned sense.

They are afraid that if they leave behind traditional Windows, they won't be able to compete against Apple and Google. They're probably right, but we'll never know. They are heading down the path to irrelevancy.

A parallel in the Open Source world is Ubuntu. They receive a lot of flak from traditionalists for trying new things, but how else are they supposed to gain market share and promote innovation? By doing what all the other distros have been doing, which is just making their desktop a little shinier and rearranging the buttons? That hasn't worked for the past 20 years, why expect it to work now?

If the iPad was just a tablet Mac, like many Slashdotters wished it had been, it would not be as successful as it is. *That's* the lesson MS should take from this, but they are trying to have their cake and eat it too. They want to start with something new, designed for the form factor and usage patterns (which is the correct thing to do), but also trying to leverage Windows, where absolutely none of the strengths of Windows brings anything of value!

Re:Please wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

Pentium D? That's just fancy x86, no?

Re:Please wait...

[Anthony Mouse]

I ran Vista on what was a pretty nice machine at the time, an Intel Pentium D 2.66Ghz, 2Gb of RAM, and a Geforce 7600GS and the thing was a dog, it would have "senior moments" and forget the network shares and not see them before being rebooted, would drag down the entire system when doing simple multitasking like watching a movie while doing a file transfer, and this was seen all the way through SP1 which is when i finally gave up on the POS. Now that exact same machine is running Win 7 Home and has been since Oct 09, and its fast, it runs great on the network, nothing about the hardware has been changed, still the same Pentium D, still the same GPU, same everything but when I use that machine its like night and day.

It sounds to me like you had driver problems with Vista. The symptoms you're describing sound like a bad NIC or GPU driver. Obviously the driver situation has improved somewhat with Windows 7, but compare Windows 7 with Windows XP on the same hardware and the slowness of Windows 7 is readily apparent.

I would also point out that the Pentium D was the fastest Netburst architecture processor ever sold (excluding the couple of Pentium EE-branded chips that were just higher clocked Pentium Ds), and were really not all that slow, they just ran very hot. Your 2.66GHz Pentium D is something like twice as fast as the fastest ARM chips sold today, maybe more. Compare that to a lot of the machines sold with Vista on Prescott-based Celeron Ds: The Pentium D has 16 times as much L2 cache (4MB vs. 256KB), and the fact that cache misses are so expensive on Netburst was one of the main reasons it had such low IPC. Both Vista and Windows 7 run like a dog on Netburst Celerons. And yet the Celeron D is still a fair amount faster than current ARM processors.

And what person is gonna want a Win 8 ARM that doesn't run Windows programs?

I don't think anybody is disagreeing with you on that one. It boggles the mind who they think their target market is. "Windows on ARM: The performance of ARM combined with the polish of first generation Microsoft products and the software support of NetBSD."

Re:Please wait...

[hairyfeet]

Sorry, wasn't the driver unless you are saying MSFT can't code a driver to save their lives, that we may agree on. But I used that machine all through the beta all the way through SP1 and I tried both MSFT drivers AND the vendor drivers and frankly neither helped, it was the I/O subsystem of the OS and well documented. me and several testers complained repeatedly that ANY multimedia use would kill the throughput on transfers, we were ignored. i guess they thought people wouldn't watch video while something was going through the network while ignoring STREAMING works exactly this way. oh and the network shares were also documented, Vista would have a senior moment and forget permissions and network setting quit often, requiring a reboot. if you had Intel NIC you were fine, Realtek or Nvidia, you were boned. sad because a good 80% of the desktop out there have Realtek NICs.

Also i have run WinXP and frankly Win 7 is better, sorry. Sure XP is a little faster but you know what? Its not doing anything. Its like saying "Well if you strip a car down to the frame it'll go faster" sure it will but you wouldn't want to ride in it! For example WinXP pounds the swap no matter how much RAM you have. you have 3Gb? don't matter, its swapapaloza, with Win 7 it has intelligent superfetch so if i launch my Dragon browser right now it WILL be faster than XP can ever hope for, because it knows i use this daily and its waiting in RAM.; I click on WMP, on MS Office, on Virtualdub, all are instant because I've used them and Windows knows that during the day I will be firing these up at this time so there they are. XP is faster on boot simply because its not really doing much,its not loading anything into RAM for me, not placing a list of the folders I use most into the jumplist of Explorer, just loading the desktop. And when you have 8Gb of RAM and 6 cores the amount of time it does take to load so little is frankly disappointing.

Finally I would point out i have actually run win 7 on a Celeron, and while NOTHING frankly runs great on a netburst Celeron simply because as you pointed out the cache misses really drag such a long piped CPU down, honestly its more pleasant than XP because Windows 7 reconfigures itself for the machine. if you look around the net there are plenty of places that note that if you put Win 7 on a machine with 512mb its only using 200Mb on startup, yet my PC uses 700Mb, why? Because 7 knows its in a RAM limited environment and will act accordingly. compare the same situation with XP Sp3 and you'll find on first boot its sucking 342Mb of RAM and beating swap like a pimp that ain't got his money. XP simply doesn't care what you have for a CPU or RAM, its using what it wants period. MSFT learned this was a bad idea when netbooks came out so Win 7 actually detects what its running on and cuts down on its superfetching and schedules tasks to run delayed when on a slower CPU or RAM starved.

But the one thing we do agree on is the uberfail that is Win 8, especially on ARM. Why would anyone want this? Android is cheap, OSX is nicer, where is the niche this is supposed to fill? People that like looking at Windows desktops? nope it doesn't even have that, it has a bastard mix of desktop and cell phone. Oh and I'm thinking you're giving MSFT too much credit friend, you see NetBSD actually has support for the server hardware its intended to run on, Win 8 ARM is gonna be a mess with driver support more like the 6 months after the release of Win95 where if you remember what few drivers there were crashed more than they ran. The only nice thing I can say about Win 8 ARM is it may get Ballmer finally fired, which considering i rank him right up there with the apple Pepsi guy on incompetent CEOs might be worth simply avoiding Win 8 for a couple of years. After all Win 7 is supported until 2020, we can all just batten down the hatches and avoid it like the STD that it is.

Re:Please wait...

[Anthony Mouse]

Sorry, wasn't the driver unless you are saying MSFT can't code a driver to save their lives, that we may agree on.

I don't think Microsoft generally writes their own drivers for third party hardware, they just get a driver from the manufacturer and certify it. And the fact that other users experienced the same thing is unsurprising: If the drivers for extremely common hardware are crap then everybody is going to have problems because they've all got the same crap drivers.

if you had Intel NIC you were fine, Realtek or Nvidia, you were boned.

...which should only really happen if the drivers are crap. (Or if the hardware is, but it seems to work fine under XP and Linux.) If it was the OS itself then using a different brand of NIC should have no effect.

And when you have 8Gb of RAM and 6 cores the amount of time it does take to load so little is frankly disappointing.

Sure, if you have 8GB of RAM and 6 cores. But the ARM devices don't.

compare the same situation with XP Sp3 and you'll find on first boot its sucking 342Mb of RAM and beating swap like a pimp that ain't got his money.

False. I got my XP machine out of the closet to check and on boot it uses 150MB, which is 50MB less than you allege for Windows 7.

And no even remotely sane OS (including XP) will do any swapping whatsoever until you've exhausted physical memory, so I don't know what you're talking about.

NOTHING frankly runs great on a netburst Celeron

I've actually found that they run Linux pretty well. Mind you no one would mistake one for a fast machine, but you don't get the conspicuous hesitations that you do with Windows. I can only speculate as to the reason but I guess the code is just better optimized to run on a processor with less cache.

Re:Please wait...

[hairyfeet]

I could probably go back and forth all day, point by point, but in the end I think the numbers speak for themselves. XP and Win 7 trade first place back and forth on test after test and the ones that XP wins is frankly by a VERY small amount, which when you consider that honestly WinXP doesn't really DO much of anything when compared to Win 7, which has performance measuring and superfetch and a new GPU accelerated subsystem all going on at the same time that they were able to make them switch back and forth like that is pretty impressive.

As for Linux honestly i wouldn't even bring it up in discussion because if anything its like WinXP Mini or one of those other hacked all to bits OSes. Sure they have gotten pretty good on initial install but frankly do an in place upgrade or two (which you HAVE to do, because its length of support even on LTS is frankly like a bad joke) and then the thing quickly falls apart. To use a /. car analogy Linux is like that 74 Dart you have setting in the back yard. if you are willing to invest the time in learning ALL its quirks, learning to do everything the way IT wants it done, setting there with a book on 70s Dodges to learn all the things you'll be required to do to keep her going? Well then you can frankly build a nice hot rod out of it. but 99.99% of us simply don't have the time to mess with the fiddly suckers and would just prefer to just go buy something that actually runs without having to spend weeks learning the thing.

BTW just FYI but you want to know what I found the fastest OS on a Netburst Celeron, at least on a 3.06GHz Prescott Celeron that I had in the family and decided to try different things, just for shits and giggles? "Win 7 Tiny edition" which is a stripped down hacked Gamer Edition of Win 7 by the guy that has made tiny versions going back to Tiny 2K. Now TinyXP was faster to boot but once she was up and running the Tiny 7 really ran...well I can't say great as frankly NOTHING not even Linux is gonna make a Netburst Celeron a great chip, but I'd say it handled about as well as one of the newer single core Atom chips which is a hell of a lot better than it handled under default XP OR 7. Frankly I don't know who the "Tiny guy" is but MSFT should bust their asses to find him and HIRE HIM NOW because honestly I've tried every version of Windows, even WinFLP and WinEmbedded and the tiny versions royally stomped the crap out of their supposedly minimal embedded OS while having a lot better support for programs than either embedded or FLP. Whomever the guy is he really knows how to slim down a Windows OS while making it compatible with just about every app out there.

Re:Please wait...

[Anthony Mouse]

XP and Win 7 trade first place back and forth on test after test and the ones that XP wins is frankly by a VERY small amount

Those are not really the right sort of benchmarks to show OS differences. The fact that they're so close together is pretty clear evidence of that. For one thing, they're running the tests one at a time, whereas the real test comes when you're running several programs at once which collectively use 85% of the physical memory in the machine and it comes down to whether the OS itself is using 15% or 25%.

On top of that, Maximum PC managed to invalidate their entire series of tests by using the 64-bit version of Windows 7 against the 32-bit version of Windows XP: You end up measuring the benefit of having twice as many general purpose registers and the other architectural improvements that come with the x86-64 ISA against the cost of making pointers twice as big.

which when you consider that honestly WinXP doesn't really DO much of anything when compared to Win 7, which has performance measuring and superfetch and a new GPU accelerated subsystem all going on at the same time that they were able to make them switch back and forth like that is pretty impressive.

It sounds to me like the thing that isn't very impressive is all the whiz bang superfetch stuff, since it can't even consistently show a performance improvement, even with the advantage of a better ISA.

On top of that, those features are primarily only relevant to faster machines with more memory: They're designed to take advantage of the fact that you have 8GB of RAM you aren't using for anything. But when the question is which performs well on slower processors with less memory, as is the case for ARM devices, none of that stuff is going to help -- you can't prefetch a 512MB program into 512MB of memory, and if you try you're going to end up evicting things you probably didn't want to.

As for Linux honestly i wouldn't even bring it up in discussion because if anything its like WinXP Mini or one of those other hacked all to bits OSes. Sure they have gotten pretty good on initial install but frankly do an in place upgrade or two (which you HAVE to do, because its length of support even on LTS is frankly like a bad joke) and then the thing quickly falls apart.

Have you ever actually done an in place upgrade? They occasionally break something, but there is no material performance difference between an upgraded system and a fresh install. And even when something breaks, the fix is easy: You back up /home and you do a fresh install. It takes about an hour once every two years.

if you are willing to invest the time in learning ALL its quirks, learning to do everything the way IT wants it done

Your anti-Linux arguments are cliche and outdated. Sure, if you run Slackware or Gentoo you have to futz with a million things to get it working... so don't. Use Ubuntu. The stock configuration will almost always find all your hardware and get you on the internet... and these days what more do you need?

Re:Please wait...

[PaladinAlpha]

His anti-Linux arguments are correct.

I do research at a large university, and do a bit of support with the IT guys (we've got too many brains and not enough elbow grease). The recent Ubuntu upgrades hosed about ten systems to the point where they wouldn't boot. I remember a Windows XP (IIRC) update years ago that had a chance of making a tiny percent of computers not boot, and people here went absolutely wild. But we're talking about something like a 70% failure rate with the Ubuntu upgrades. In addition, "backing up /home and reinstalling" is not the simple process you make it out to be; you're taking on every problem you ever had getting the box to run correctly.

Ubuntu will never have the funding to pay people to fix the "last mile" of problems, because those aren't sexy. New interfaces, funky new object models, all that stuff is fun -- but no one is going to volunteer to fix the interaction issues and corner cases without a competitive salary, and it's going to take a lot of those guys to polish it. Never happen without some kind of fundamental shift in the market (a couple gens of Windows 8 style products might do it).

In my field (HPC) we use Linux because it blows Windows out of the water when you need to tune up a serious distributed cluster. As a result I'm familiar and comfortable with Linux and can really make it scream, so I use it on most of my boxes, and there's a lot about it that I really like -- compare it to a mechanic's project car. But I keep a Windows 7 machine at home for games, and while every Linux box I've had has required forum searches and post-update repairs, the Win7 machine has remained stable through a (gigantic and no doubt inefficient) list of updates -- just like that mechanic doesn't drive that project car to work, because he knows he'll strand himself eventually.

Re:Please wait...

[Anthony Mouse]

The recent Ubuntu upgrades hosed about ten systems to the point where they wouldn't boot. I remember a Windows XP (IIRC) update years ago that had a chance of making a tiny percent of computers not boot, and people here went absolutely wild.

You're comparing apples and oranges. Windows update only applies critical updates to Windows. The Ubuntu package manager updates third party software, drivers, everything. I can't even count the number of times I've seen updating the video driver hose a Windows machine. Not to mention that the fact that common software comes as executable files from arbitrary websites encourages users to run stuff like that and hose their machine with "xp antivirus 2012" and the like.

And you're comparing upgrading from one release of Ubuntu to another with applying security patches through Windows Update. Have you ever tried upgrading from one version of Windows to another? It's such a well-renowned disaster that hardly anyone even attempts it. And if you were so bold as to skip installing Vista on your 2006-era machine that came with Windows XP so that you don't have to upgrade Windows once every three years, you'll find that an upgrade from Windows XP to Windows 7 is unsupported: You have to do a clean install and "take on every problem you ever had getting the box to run correctly."

But we're talking about something like a 70% failure rate with the Ubuntu upgrades.

I expect I'm right in assuming that the failures you experienced were related because the machines that failed shared a single characteristic that caused the failure. You would hardly have had a 70% failure rate if you had bothered to do a modicum of testing and determined the cause of the failure on the first machine that failed before wantonly breaking the rest of them.

In addition, "backing up /home and reinstalling" is not the simple process you make it out to be; you're taking on every problem you ever had getting the box to run correctly.

Those would be problems you've already solved. In the rare case that they haven't been fixed in the new release, you just pull the documented solution out of the service history and apply it.

On top of all of that, as of 12.04 due this April the Ubuntu LTS desktop releases will be supported for five years. Generally speaking the service lifetime of PC hardware is five years or less, so the idea that you'll have to worry about the consequences of upgrading from one release to another is about to become irrelevant because you'll have bought a new machine by the time the latest LTS release needs to be upgraded.

Ubuntu will never have the funding to pay people to fix the "last mile" of problems, because those aren't sexy.

This is what I'm talking about when I say cliched and outdated. Canonical is not a charity that fixes problems based on how sexy they are. They're a business that pays programmers to fix the unsexy problems their customers actually have.

Re:Please wait...

[AmiMoJo]

They are afraid that if they leave behind traditional Windows, they won't be able to compete against Apple and Google. They're probably right, but we'll never know. They are heading down the path to irrelevancy.

Hardly surprising that they would want to leverage the masses of software and decades of experience developers have with their platform. A developer familiar with .NET and WPF, of which there are many, will be able to write Windows 8 apps that work on all platforms easily. Of course MS is not bothering with x86 compatibility in the ARM versions, they want everyone to use .NET for everything. And to be fair .NET and WPF are actually pretty good these days.

They want to start with something new, designed for the form factor and usage patterns (which is the correct thing to do), but also trying to leverage Windows, where absolutely none of the strengths of Windows brings anything of value!

Window does bring value. MS is hoping that you will be running the same apps on your desktop, laptop, tablet and phone. That will be nice for a lot of users. Fewer apps to learn and master, they work the same on all platforms, you only have to buy them once, no messing around with file format conversion or compatibility...

Many popular tablet apps are versions of desktop apps anyway. Firefox Mobile, Photoshop Mobile, various office suites, or Bejeweled clones.

Re:Please wait...

[PaladinAlpha]

(sigh) Okay, we can do point by point.

You're comparing apples and oranges.

Consumers -- the people using the software -- are comparing desktops to desktops. It doesn't matter why your brakes failed.

I've literally never, not once, in my experience with my own machines, my co-workers' machines, or my friends' machines seen a Windows box be brought down by a video driver upgrade -- ATI, nVidia, whatever. But everyone I know who uses Linux (myself included) has found themselves doing "lynx google.com" after a video driver upgrade.

Have you ever tried upgrading from one version of Windows to another?

This is a more complex issue. See, I don't have to upgrade Windows to get newer versions of software. Modulo backporting trickery, that's not true of Ubuntu -- if I want a newer GCC or whatever I either a) build from source, destabilizing my packages or b) do a release upgrade, breaking my machine.

I expect I'm right in assuming that the failures you experienced were related because the machines that failed shared a single characteristic that caused the failure.

This is completely false. I have contractual obligations not to talk about the hardware too much (and yes, I see where that's leading *rolls eyes*) but the machines are almost completely heterogeneous -- no two share the same processor, there are a variety of both ATI and nVidia cards, etc. Failures were rampant. We suspect it was because of a regression with the new dm's compatibility with LDAP'd network shared home directories. Complete showstopper with no permanent fix that doesn't cripple parts of the system.

Those would be problems you've already solved. In the rare case that they haven't been fixed in the new release, you just pull the documented solution out of the service history and apply it.

Funny, the guys running Windows upstairs don't need a service history (to a rough approximation). Are you listening to yourself? You're seriously suggesting it's okay to have to document getting a consumer machine running. We document install procedures on supercluster nodes with exotic hardware. That shouldn't be necessary for desktops with commodity hardware.

This is what I'm talking about when I say cliched and outdated. Canonical is not a charity that fixes problems based on how sexy they are. They're a business that pays programmers to fix the unsexy problems their customers actually have.

Well, yeah, that completely agrees with what I said, because Microsoft has been paying thousands of developers for decades -- there are billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of man-years of experience invested in Windows. Some of that is on the same 'fun' aspects of development that FOSS has taken care of in the development of Linux. Others are covered by the sheer competence of the people drawn to Linux development. But a lot of it isn't covered at all, and Canonical isn't even a drop in that bucket. The last 10% takes 50% or more of the work, and Canonical doesn't have anything like the funds to pay for that -- it's borderline dishonest to suggest otherwise.

Re:Please wait...

[Anthony Mouse]

Consumers -- the people using the software -- are comparing desktops to desktops. It doesn't matter why your brakes failed.

That's my point: The fact that Windows Update works pretty well doesn't much matter if your computer gets infected with "XP Antivirus 2012" every other week.

I've literally never, not once, in my experience with my own machines, my co-workers' machines, or my friends' machines seen a Windows box be brought down by a video driver upgrade -- ATI, nVidia, whatever. But everyone I know who uses Linux (myself included) has found themselves doing "lynx google.com" after a video driver upgrade.

At this point we're just trading anecdotes, but I can tell you the exact scenario that causes the problem in Windows: Somebody has a newish machine and is trying to play a newish game, the game is running like crap or not running at all, and the solution proffered is to update the video driver. The video card being somewhat recent, the latest driver on the manufacturer's website has been available for a total of about 36 hours, and having installed it the next thing you see is a BSOD.

This is a more complex issue. See, I don't have to upgrade Windows to get newer versions of software. Modulo backporting trickery, that's not true of Ubuntu -- if I want a newer GCC or whatever I either a) build from source, destabilizing my packages or b) do a release upgrade, breaking my machine.

I don't know about that. Ever try installing IE9 on Windows XP? Or using any of that baleful Hollywood nonsense that requires the new-to-Vista DRM stack? Or DirectX 11?

Also, most software that you would want to upgrade outside of the standard release window will have a PPA available. For example, for gcc see here.

We suspect it was because of a regression with the new dm's compatibility with LDAP'd network shared home directories.

This is what I mean by a shared characteristic. Failures that all have the same cause aren't statistically independent. Your 70% number is meaningless if the issue only affects people who use LDAP with network shared home directories and the large majority of users don't do that.

Funny, the guys running Windows upstairs don't need a service history (to a rough approximation). Are you listening to yourself? You're seriously suggesting it's okay to have to document getting a consumer machine running. We document install procedures on supercluster nodes with exotic hardware. That shouldn't be necessary for desktops with commodity hardware.

And it isn't, by and large. You can pretty much take anything Dell has sold in the last decade and install Ubuntu 10.04 on it with no problems. You're the one claiming that some extravagant list of problems will be had in doing a clean install. That hasn't been my experience. What I'm saying is that if you're doing something exotic, or you run into some strange corner case that requires a non-obvious solution, it would be wise to document it -- if only so that when the machine gets hit by lightning you can get it back in working order. But once you've documented it, you don't have to worry about it again the next time you do a clean install, because you've now got the solution available should you need it.

The last 10% takes 50% or more of the work, and Canonical doesn't have anything like the funds to pay for that -- it's borderline dishonest to suggest otherwise.

I would agree with you if Canonical were the only ones doing the work, but they aren't. Linux is huge in the server space -- which means all of the problems with network drivers, file systems, multitasking, etc. get solved by those people, who are spending the same billions of dollars that Microsoft does. All Canonical has to do is take the fine work of those people and polish the UI.

Re:Please wait...

[PaladinAlpha]

We've about mined this out -- our experiences have been wildly different -- but I wanted to say that I was in a ferocious temper earlier and probably came on a bit too strong ("borderline dishonest" and aggressive crap like that). I apologize if I sounded harsh and appreciate your patience in discussing this civilly.

So what I see is Linux big where there's big iron. Our clusters, like I said, wouldn't exist without Linux, and as you say the server market is huge (one step shy of homogeneous). I see desktop problems frequently, though -- regarding software upgrades (and the more I think about it, the more I think this is a deep problem) even having to add a repo for a PPA is an order of magnitude more complex than simply installing new software without thinking about it.

Such things aren't unheard of in MS land -- the DirectX issues, as you point out, and so forth. But all of those decisions have been met with huge resistance, and I would posit that 99% of the software on the average Windows desktop user's machine can be upgraded simply by getting the new version for a good ten years afterwards, whereas in Linux if you want feature upgrades your options are all going to require a little reading. Again, project cars.

None of this is really meant as a criticism of Linux, just my own opinion that it's not really competitive in the desktop space. NTTAWWT, because it can fly in the right hands -- it's not really needed in the desktop space. Hell, the megacorps want everyone to have thin clients again, anyway. *grin*

Re:Please wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

At this point we're just trading anecdotes, but I can tell you the exact scenario that causes the problem in Windows: Somebody has a newish machine and is trying to play a newish game, the game is running like crap or not running at all, and the solution proffered is to update the video driver. The video card being somewhat recent, the latest driver on the manufacturer's website has been available for a total of about 36 hours, and having installed it the next thing you see is a BSOD.

Your understanding of the word 'exact' is wildly incorrect.

Re:Please wait...

[nightfell]

Not really. Nobody really wants to run Windows on their tablet or phone, and you won't be able to run Windows programs anyway (what have you been smoking?), so the one short-term benefit of being able to run the same software is meaningless.

As for running the same software, that hasn't been a problem for iOS or Android. Porting software is no problem, and for the software that doesn't get ported, it will just be reimplemented by someone else.

Regardless, this is definitely not MS copying Apple.

As for .Net, you don't have to make it Windows to support it. MS is trying to leverage something that is exceptionally valuable on the PC in a market where it's not only valueless, it's a liability.

iOS is worth more than all of MS combined.

Why Go ARM when there is Medfield?

[guidryp]

I am failing to see why anyone would get an WOA tablet.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5365/intels-medfield-atom-z2460-arrive-for-smartphones
Summary Medfield is running in similar power envelope to an ARM SoC, but with faster benchmarks.

ARM might get you marginally more battery life, but Medfield gives you full backward compatibility.

Re:Why Go ARM when there is Medfield?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because intel graphics suck.

Re:Why Go ARM when there is Medfield?

[jbwolfe]

Perhaps the same reason folks buy WP7 devices instead of Android or iOS ones. Also, don't discount the fact that Microsoft could license ARM technology and design their own CPUs fabbed at TSMC or Global Foundries. Apple did it. This would reduce their dependance on, and increase their influence over x86/64 chip makers. (And they already have a hardware division.)

Re:Why Go ARM when there is Medfield?

[unixisc]

Maybe, but as a Windows platform, you can at least run your current apps. A PC w/ WOA makes even less sense.

Re:Why Go ARM when there is Medfield?

[Anonymous Coward]

The medfield is running @ 1.6Ghz, much faster than the other chips that it's being compaired to. Normalized to clockrate, the performance based on those benchmarks is similar an A9, and likely a bit behind Krait and A15 due out this year. Those power numbers are provided by Intel, so take those with some caution.

Re:Why Go ARM when there is Medfield?

[shutdown -p now]

I assume GP is referring to Medfield running Win8, not Win8/ARM vs Android/Medfield.

And yes, it's a good question. I know I'll wait for a Medfield (or Fusion) tablet, because I want full desktop experience, including the ability to install whatever the heck I want on it. Being able to run some old games like AoW and Majesty would be a nice bonus.

Re:Why Go ARM when there is Medfield?

[unixisc]

Microsoft already has all the influence that they want over the x86 architecture. Who else could have forced Intel to accept an AMD defined instruction set standard - AMD64 - as their own, and settle for good their licensing disputes? Had it been up to Intel, they'd have loved to kill the x86, and made 3 attempts @ it - the last being Itanic. It's Windows that had immortalized the x86.

Also, if MS wanted to enter the CPU business, there were lots of things they could have done. For one, they could have bought DEC Semiconductors and owned the Alpha, and done for it exactly what people are claiming they'd do for ARM. Or they could have bought one of the smaller companies that made MIPS R4600 or R5000 or R1x000 and made a whole range of platforms, ranging from phones (Windows CE did support MIPS @ one time) to super-computers (SGI did make super computers based on the R1x000). And today, MIPS has certain CPUs targeted @ the Android market, and had they belonged to MS, the latter would have had a versatile CPU architecture to cover all their bases.

Compared to that, MS could license ARM, just like Apple did, but it won't help them OWN the architecture, which is now too distributed to be owned by anyone. Honestly, I don't think either MS or Apple or Google are interested in owning any CPU architecture. Otherwise, Apple, as one of the founders of AIM that put together the PPC, could have owned it, or at least bought off Freescale from Motorola just for this purpose. MS could have acquired MIPS or Alpha. So could Google. HP has PA-RISC and Itanium, while Oracle has UltraSparc. Point is - it just doesn't matter.

I agree w/ the GP. Medfield would have at least given them the backward compatibility option, at least for tablets. For phones, a subset of the Wintel apps that would be useful for corporate usage would have been adequate. That, along w/ Pinball, Hearts, Freecell, Chess, et al.

Re:Why Go ARM when there is Medfield?

[unixisc]

If there is a Windows 8 tablet based on Medfield or Fusion, it has the potential to erode a good portion of the Wintel laptop market.

Re:Why Go ARM when there is Medfield?

[shutdown -p now]

I'm pretty sure it's not "if", but "when" and "how much".

And yes, it would definitely erode the laptop (esp. netbook) market. But laptop manufacturers are already getting into the tablet business - Asus, Dell, Lenovo, Sony all have their tablet devices running Android today. So they're already switching over either way; having a tablet-enabled version Windows running on x86 tablet hardware will probably only make them switch faster.

Re:Why Go ARM when there is Medfield?

[Anonymous Coward]

Medfield really does show Intel being in the game. But ARM will enable more form factors (the business model supports more flexibility of designs), probably cost significantly less and yes, battery life is increasingly important. Also, not everybody wants Windows 'Classic', otherwise ipads probably wouldn't sell quite so well.

Re:Why Go ARM when there is Medfield?

[Anonymous Coward]

In addition my memory of these tests is that they say that a single core Medfield is a bit faster than using one core of a 4-core ARM (yes, it is well hidden by using a single-threaded benchmark).
So for appropriate workloads Medfield should be about 3 times slower at the same power usage.

Re:Why is this relevant?

[MikeMo]

iOS has Pages, Keynote and Numbers. It has a full suite of email, calendar and reminder services. It may not look and feel like Microsoft Office, but the functionality is there for 95% of us. Some would say it's a *good* thing!

Re:Why is this relevant?

[recoiledsnake]

The Lumia 800 launched in very few countries like the UK in mid Nov. They only launched in Feb in their home country, Finland, and were sold out instantly.

WOA is the Windows "Kindle Fire" consumption tab

[Glasswire]

Anyone who's been paying attention realizes that MSFT was engaging it's traditional Apple-envy by trying to create a MSFT iOS tablet experience (we create, you consume and buy) with WOA. Despite (at least on boot) laying Metro on both, REAL Windows (x86) is very different and can be used to do creative tasks.

MSFT wants what Apple has:
APPLE: OS/X on x86 (general purpose computers) to create apps for ARM iOS (device OS) phones and tabs
MSFT: Win on x86 to (general purpose computers) create apps for ARM Win8 (device OS) tabs (phones later)
The money is in the consumption devices, so you focus on making sure the general purpose devices (computers running a real OS) have the tools to rapidly build app product for the devices.

Imagining the ARM ver of Windows be a thriving creative equal of x86 is typical Slashdot wishful thinking. A new, CHEAP fast, open platform that doesn't drive additional revenue isn't in any major player's interest and isn't going to happen.

You've got amazingly cheap and powerful x86 architecture that acquired a gigantic open ecosystem in spite of what the big players have wanted. Appreciate and protect this anomaly while you can.

Re:Why is this relevant?

[WrongSizeGlass]

Don't know if you're being sarcastic. It is a deal breaker for some. While VB6, VFP etc may not be sexy, a lot of legacy software are written in those.

Semi sarcastic. ;-)

One of my clients is still using VB 6 but has finally accepted that they need to transition over to something more current (with a much larger pool of available talent). We're actually interviewing for the position ATM.

the expectation WILL BE that it will run Wintel

[Anonymous Coward]

And that expectation is what kept Microsoft in the game despite their crappy software.

If a Word document doesn't open in OOo, that's OOo that's broken. If an OOo document doesn't open in Word, that's because OOo is broken. If a Word document doesn't open in Word, then it's just what happens when Microsoft support so many configurations.

And, even if the display is proved incorrect, the Windows display of a document is precisely the display that is demanded.

Re:Why is this relevant?

[sed quid in infernos]

Yes, but the proper measure when trying to predict whether something will be a success isn't "is this good enough?" but whether a particular group of people think it's good enough. And for some, that's going to include "look and feel like Microsoft Office." Plus, Apple is probably never going to introduce a Transformer-like iPad model. I've used tablets with prop-stands and bluetooth keyboard, and the ease of use from the transformable form factor is not to be underestimated. It's much easier to grab the tablet/keyboard in netbook form and open it up, start typing, then put it away when you have brief periods during the day to do some work - if the Android office software didn't suck so much, that is.

Re:Why is this relevant?

[N1ckR]

Only needs to be ported to Metro and the Win RT framework to run on both WOA and Win8 x86/64.

Re:Why is this relevant?

[zootie]

Indeed, legacy business apps are living far beyond the lifecycle of the underlying technologies, many times thanks to virtualization, and because business are reticent to re-engineer old apps (virtualization is allowing them to stay with old tech a lot longer).

I dislike profoundly the concept of desktop WOA, but it might make sense for some. MS is looking to drastically simplify the platform. If they get rid of most legacy APIs (and old ways to do things) and make it easy for consumers and enterprise users and IT to just install a light client (ie, WOA), they might have something. Having WOA for the endpoint might make sense because you can always provide the good old legacy apps using RDP and RemoteApp, getting the best of both worlds (as long as you have a connection, disconnected laptop users be dammed). MS will be charging for 2 licenses per user: one for the WOA device, one -or many- for the RDP server client licenses.

As for the list of tools: Delphi might make it. Embarcadero is pushing cross platform development with their FireMonkey framework in the XE2 line of products (ie, Delphi and C++). They already support WIndows, OSX and iOS, and there are plans to support Android (blog posts hint at a beta sometime this quarter or next).

FireMonkey is not a direct Delphi VCL (or even OWL) replacement, so it's not like you'll be able to just recompile your old Delphi apps, but you at least get a starting point, and Delphi component vendors seem to be taking notice and creating components for the framework. It remains to be seen how much vapor and how good it is, and how many organizations are willing to port their Delphi apps.

So for native cross development for iOS and Android, there might be a few options in the horizon:
* Xamarin monoTouch and monoDroid, at $400 each (for single developer license)
* Embarcadero FireMonkey XE2 products (when it supports Android)
* Qt

And these support WIndows x86, and will likely support WOA.

Re:Why is this relevant?

[Missing.Matter]

Pags, Keynote and Numbers on iOS are an absolute joke compared to Microsoft Office. iWork on iOS might do 95% of the job (and I'd argue it's more like 50%) but when Office can do 100% of what I want to do it's an obvious choice to make.

Re:Why is this relevant?

[Missing.Matter]

Do you think software such as AutoCAD, or Adobe Creative Suite, or um, Maya, or other highly vertical application software will be ported to WOA?

It's more likely than them being ported to iOS and Android, that's for sure.

Re:Why is this relevant?

[Jeng]

When setting up Windows 8 in Virtual Box it recommended 1.5 gigs of ram. For something that is suppose to run on tablets that is a lot.

The OS has the needs of a desktop OS, but is suppose to be aimed at tablets. This will fail and fail badly.

Vista will look good in comparison.

Re:Well -- (that is a deep subject)

[DickBreath]

When Macintosh came out in 1984, it was a new platform. Developers of green-screen text apps far outnumbered the number of developers on the new platform. But here we are today all running GUI's.

Some of those legacy developers thought they could just port their text applications to Macintosh (or later to Windows) without having to deeply re-think. We all see how well that went.

Android and iOS already have a large developer base that have re-thought apps for the new platforms. Windows developers have not yet, or have just begun to re-think for the new platform. The new platform has not only a new UI style, it has touchscreen, gestures, multi-touch, and voice commands. In addition the new platform (eg, Android in this case) still works with a keyboard and pointing device(s). (see existing implementations like Logitech Revue device, or Android laptop type form factors). So while Windows as a platform has a large base of developers, they are just now coming to the game, which is already at halftime.

Re:Why is this relevant?

[DickBreath]

As you say, ARM is a nice platform. And the successful systems built on it (Android and iOS) are also nice -- and more importantly already successful and established. Windows on ARM is not reality yet.

Arm based laptops and Redmond Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft could switch gears and produce a Linux distro that runs on an ARM based laptop bundling a port of Office. There is absolutely no reason why this could not happen.

Re:Arm based laptops and Redmond Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow! Would like to share what you are smoking with the rest of us?

Microsoft will do nothing that uses Linux. End of. No Way. Never. Hell would have to freeze over twice before that would happen.

As for a port of Office to Android?

If anyone inside Fortress Redmond proposed this, they'd be collecting their pink slip within the hour. They gnashing of teeth they have to go through whenver they release a version for OSX can be heard in Vegas.

The reason that your proposals will never see the light of day is due to the MS Culture of TOTAL Control in the area of Windows and Office.

Re:Arm based laptops and Redmond Linux

[DeathFromSomewhere]

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/microsoft/microsoft-seeking-open-source-expert-to-help-put-linux-on-azure/11741
https://market.android.com/details?id=com.microsoft.office.onenote&feature=search_result#?t=W251bGwsMSwxLDEsImNvbS5taWNyb3NvZnQub2ZmaWNlLm9uZW5vdGUiXQ..

Wow! Would like to share what you are smoking with the rest of us?

Re:Arm based laptops and Redmond Linux

[drsmithy]

There is absolutely no reason why this could not happen.

Indeed. Other than huge expenses and zero benefits, no reason at all !

Re:Why is this relevant?

[DickBreath]

Android already has at least a couple of "office suite" type apps that do not pretend to be Microsoft Office. People who want to travel light are already buying either iOS or Android devices. OpenOffice.org is being ported to Android and iOS -- but that will have the same disadvantage of Microsoft Office -- it is just a port. It is not deeply re-thought for the new platforms. Its like when developers of green screen text apps simply recompiled them for the 1984 Macintosh -- and didn't sell any. A tablet device with Microsoft Office merely recompiled, is already a loser.

just a confirm ?

[bigbangnet]

so if I get this right, if its not from windows store, I wont be able to run it ?

Re:just a confirm ?

[Glasswire]

Only if you buy the inferior ARM Win8, not the real Win8, which is x86

Re:Why is this relevant?

[DickBreath]

What may happen is like this. Lotus 123 was the successful and respected product. New spreadsheet programs were developed (like Excel, which was first exclusively for the Mac -- the new platform back in the day).

Those professional apps may either get deeply re-thought for the new platforms (in which case, you might as well re-think for the established successful platforms like iOS or Android), or they will remain in the past, like Lotus 123 and be replaced by a new generation of counterparts that are designed for the new platforms, not merely ported to the new platforms. Apps that embrace the new UI, touch, gestures, long press, multi touch, voice commands, location aware, gyros, accelerometers, etc.

That too ties into the .NET Framework

[tepples]

"Windows .NET" makes sense because Windows Server 2003 was the first version of Windows Server to be bundled with a version of IIS supporting ASP.NET, a web application framework built on the .NET Framework. Microsoft even registered ASP.net.

Re:That too ties into the .NET Framework

[shutdown -p now]

There really was a time when .NET was slapped around pretty much at random - the world was almost graced with the existence of Office .NET, for example; and the use of .NET for Windows Server branding didn't really have much to do with it supporting ASP.NET, it was a branding that was "all about Internet" or some such thing.

And, yeah, this seems to be a recurring theme at MS. Back in late 90s, it was ActiveX, Active Desktop, Active Scripting etc. These days it's Live - Live Messenger, Xbox Live, Games for Windows Live etc.

Re:Obvious *benefit* is the drivers

[bigbangnet]

This also means to be theres a big possibility that small businesses that sell cheaper hardware with "not approved" but still working 100% (aopen, startech.com just to name a few) will probably go out of business. This is because they wont be able to "publish" it so we'll be stuck with the overbloated hardware that most dont even need anyways. Sometimes you just want something super cheap and you don't need to rip your arm off so you can use that hardware.

Re:Obvious *benefit* is the drivers

[Anonymous Coward]

Overall, it looks like Microsoft is doing exactly what people have been asking for - a more secure Windows environment. Locking down software to approved sources only, and getting rid of creakingly old APIs that date back to Windows 3.1, will make it faster, more stable, and more secure - but now people are complaining.

To be fair, the people complaining about security and stability are not the same people who are complaining about not being able to write their own driver. Every windows user cares about security and stability. I doubt that there are 100 people in the world who would complain about having to get drivers from a curated source. Well, there might be more than 100 malware authors who will complain...

Re:Obvious *benefit* is the drivers

[Hatta]

Note that for the hardware/software developers - hobbyist or professional - there will be a developer switch, to turn off security and allow you to load unsigned/unapproved programs and drivers.

Do you have evidence that this will be the case, or is it just wishful thinking? What are the chances that I'll be charged extra for a developer's unit?

Re:Why is this relevant?

[21mhz]

Lumia 710 is currently sold out at Vodafone Portugal. Lumia 800 is only available on the same carrier for pre-order, so not even all "Nokia-friendly" markets are fully covered so far.

Developer unfriendly != "consumption"

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

I don't think that consumption means what you think it means.

Musicians, artists, writers and all sorts of creative people have been doing wonderful things with tablets.

I think what you're looking for is developer unfriendly.

Re:Developer unfriendly != "consumption"

[Glasswire]

I think creative people use tablets and phones as convenient, lightweight, supplementary devices. But any musician using ProTools or designer using Adobe CS on a powerful desktop or laptop doesn't think an iPad is going to replace that.

Re:Developer unfriendly != "consumption"

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Clearly not but consumption? In order to consume properly a device must be easy to interact with. Thus leading to creation.

Re:Why is this relevant?

[21mhz]

When setting up Windows 8 in Virtual Box it recommended 1.5 gigs of ram. For something that is suppose to run on tablets that is a lot.

Meanwhile, some smartphones are derided for only having half a gigabyte. Nokia N9 packs 1 GB, because its software failed to run properly in anything less.

Re:Why is this relevant?

[Missing.Matter]

Some programs won't benefit from a new UI paradigm just like some programs are better on the command line than the GUI. How is location awareness, accelerometers, gyros, voice commands, etc going to make a spreadsheet application better? Does it really need to be better? What you see in touch only operating systems like Android and iOS is a move BACK to the desktop paradigm (keyboard and mouse) because guess what, your fancy gyroscope and light sensor and whizbang multitouch doesn't make typing a document any better.

Moreover, how many Android/iOS apps actually take advantage of all or even a few of those sensors. Most apps besides games just use multitouch. You can't even say they're reimagined, because they just use touch as a stand in for a mouse pointer. Only very few apps are fundamentally different because of touch aside from a larger more finger-friendly interface. Otherwise I see the same GUI elements as on the desktop (buttons, scroll bars, text areas, check boxes, radio control, etc) but with larger target areas. That's not a re-imagining, it's a re-scaling.

Re:Why is this relevant?

[s73v3r]

All you have to do is add a Bluetooth keyboard and you have that with an iPad.

Re:Why is this relevant?

[s73v3r]

Not really. Office might be able to do 5% more, but how often do you use that extra 5%? And what are the costs needed to get that extra 5%? I'm guessing to get Office the way you want it, you're going to need to use an x86 device, which instantly cuts your battery life down to the 2-3 hour range, as opposed to 7-8 hours for an ARM tablet.

Re:Why is this relevant?

[s73v3r]

You had better do more than just that. You had better make different modes that work differently in tablet mode and desktop mode.

Re:Why is this relevant?

[s73v3r]

Yes, but that's the desktop/x86 version of Win8, isn't it?

A leg cheaper than I thought it would be

[Spykk]

Does the headline indicate that Windows will be released for a new architecture or is it a description of Microsoft's new pricing policy?

ohferchrissake

[roc97007]

Dear Mister Balmer.

It's not the CPU. IOS and Android aren't popular because they run on ARM. They're popular because they have well thought-out touch interfaces, good reliability, good integration with the hardware, an SDK that people actually want to develop to, and a well populated marketplace. You don't have any of those things. Switching CPUs isn't going to help.

Yours Truly,

The User Community

Re:ohferchrissake

[21mhz]

It's not the CPU. IOS and Android aren't popular because they run on ARM. They're popular because they have well thought-out touch interfaces, good reliability, good integration with the hardware, an SDK that people actually want to develop to, and a well populated marketplace. You don't have any of those things.

I have a Windows Phone and it tells me that you are wrong, on all counts. I do miss a couple of apps, but those are in the "something to do when you are waiting/bored", not anything mission critical.

Re:ohferchrissake

[roc97007]

Thus again proving that for any platform, there will always be someone somewhere who likes it.

Re:ohferchrissake

[unixisc]

For tablets or phones - more so phones - something to do when you are waiting/bored is likely to be one of the more frequent use cases, than the typical activities one does on a laptop. The GP is right about all points, in that there is no reason to prefer a Windows phone to either an iPhone/iPad nor an Android, particularly when they are not going to run the millions of Windows apps out there that CAN run on tablets or phones.

Re:ohferchrissake

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

There's no reason to dislike Windows Phone either, it's all about taste at this point.

Unfortunately this being Windows and Microsoft...

Metro IS gorgeous; but would I want to live with it? It's like a Frank Gehry building. Amazing to look at shitty to live in.

Re:ohferchrissake

[21mhz]

Sounds like you've never really tried Windows Phone. There's nothing shitty about the user experience, it's actually livable.

Re:Why is this relevant?

[ninjacut]

WOA is a tablet OS, so no need to have full IDE environment running on it. Its like expecting iOS or Android run full fledged IDE. For that, you need x86 Windows 8. Once they gain maturity and more powerful hardware evolve they can even merge it into one platform. In terms of use, it will gain big traction in corporates. They need office compatibility, enterprise manageability and they are good to go. The corporate culture is way different mindset. At least in my organization I have seen hightened interest with few folks playing with developer release

Re:Obvious *benefit* is the drivers

[Anonymous Coward]

Anon reply for a number of reasons.

It's true that there are some incredibly horrible drivers out there. It's also true that those horrible drivers are often so horrible just because they are fixing MS bugs. As a Windows Driver developer for 15+ years, The number of OS kernel bugs I have had to work around is countless. MS is always unwilling to fix their kernel, so these fixes just accumulate and create instability.

The idea the the OS is perfect and pristine "if it wasn't for those damn drivers!" is ridiculous.

WOA PCs? Woah!!!!

[unixisc]

OK, WOA PC? In other words, a desktop or laptop, which instead of an i5 Core or Fusion inside, will be having some ARM CPU from say, NVIDIA or TI or Marvell or any of those myriad ARM CPU makers. Okay, so now, we're no longer talking about a phone or tablet where this is limited by a walled garden, which would at least have that bit of idiot-proofing built in?

Okay, so let's say Joe is @ home w/ a whole bunch of XP or 7 based software titles, some of which were bought, some borrowed, some shareware, and so on, which he has been using on an old laptop of his. Since he's heard about, say, this new laptop from Acme Laptops that uses an ARM platform from NVIDIA, which uses less power than the usual Intel or AMD laptops out there, he decides to get it. He's surprised that the new laptop doesn't come w/ the OS CD (what does one do if the HDD is corrupted and the entire system needs to be re-installed after due back-ups?), but decides to play along. The salesman manages to sell him on it, and he takes it home.

He now turns on the computer and notes w/ satisfaction that it recognizes all his peripherals (let's assume that his current laser printer, which is working fine, didn't have a driver problem here), and also, that some of the common software, like MS Office, comes fully preloaded w/ everything, including Visio. He decides that he'll install his games later, but for now, he wants to install FoxIt, which is a cheap substitute for Adobe Acrobat. Pulls out that FoxIt CD from his album and installs it into his drive.

Now guess what? It won't even install! After all, it's a Wintel app, not a WOA app, and not something supported by MS. So he's SOL. Disapponted, he then googles for other Acrobat alternatives on the internet, and guess what? All of them are Wintel ONLY! None of them can install on his new box b'cos the new box is an ARM! Or did they mean that no WOA PC or laptop will ever include an optical drive, so as to eliminate the possibility of such a thing happening? That would be another great idea - selling new PCs or laptops w/ no optical drives, leaving the customer unable to view a DVD b'cos the vendor wanted to protect him from his own stupidity in inserting his existing Wintel software titles and finding out that they don't work. Finally, after finding out about a myriad more ways in which he can't do what he used to be able to much more easily, he decides to pack it and take it in to be returned, or traded in.

Ironically, had Microsoft provided this sort of a support to MIPS and Alpha 15 years ago, there would have been 3 major CPU platforms today for workstations and servers, and we could have gone past the x86 architecture w/ better CPUs than ARM!

What about a ARM+x86 laptop?

[ninjackn]

While a Windows 8 ARM laptop doesn't really entice me the idea of a laptop with an ARM and a x86/64 processor is something that does. In the future we could see laptops that have both a low power ARM and a high performance x86/64 processor and would switch between the two as necessary. In that respect I find Windows 8 ARM interesting, it would be out there to build up the library of programs and drivers so the next (next) version of Windows could support both ARM and x86 as one single OS. It would then have enough software to run on the ARM core to see the battery life of days but can run anything you can throw at it.

Re:What about a ARM+x86 laptop?

[unixisc]

Why would one want an ARM in such a laptop?

Re:Obvious *benefit* is the drivers

[Belial6]

No. Legacy compatibility forces zero impact on new versions. Zero. MS has owned a full PC emulator for years. Every single legacy app and legacy device could trivially be run via emulation. MS could start from scratch on every singe version of Windows and have virtually 100% of all legacy software work. There is no need to lock out old software to make available the option of a secure Windows.

Emulating Apple

[cjcela]

Microsoft is seeing the advantages that Apple has with its tight control on its software ecosystem, and it is trying to emulate it. But it is too late, and it is too detached from their current model of software distribution for it to work. It is the same they tried to do with the Zune. This will work if they spawn a new company for it, and disassociate the project from Windows in the minds of the customers. Then, they may have a chance to do this and to get a better grip at controlling the hardware (both of which are troubling for us power users, tinkerers, and software developers). Sometimes I think Microsoft somehow is stuck 20 years in the past, no matter how much they try. They sure do have the brains and the money, but they do not have anybody with a vision.

PHB suit writes 8000 words ... PUH-lease

[Anomalyst]

He handed the task off to the market droids and rubber stamped his name to the result.

I don't care..

[WaffleMonster]

I don't understand why Microsoft is racing off a cliff to be just like Apple nor do I care.

I will not purchase anything remotly like apple i*. If people like having the OS vendor dictate what they can run on their own devices they paid for then they deserve what they get.

Look at the previews of Win8 MS... **everyone** thinks metro is crap and unusable.

Sorry, try again. Medfield uses PowerVR graphics.

[guidryp]

Because intel graphics suck.

Medfield uses PowerVR licensed graphic cores. The same as Apple and many other ARM SoCs.

Microsoft ...

[tqk]

... not because Microsoft is evil ...

I just noticed that, without even realizing I'd done so, I appear to have trained my brain to interpret "Microsoft" as "Holy, !@#$ing boring, Batman!" That's also true for all the software designed to run on their "OS". Lotus Notes, CuteFTP, gag me with a spoon!

I don't give a flying !@#$, nor a rat's ass, what they do or do not do. I. Just. Don't. Care. Huh.

Why I felt the urge to care enough to even write this is a mystery.

Cool. :-)

I didn't see a reason to buy one in there.

[guidryp]

Perhaps the same reason folks buy WP7 devices instead of Android or iOS ones.

I don't see any connection to this case. WP7 is a complete different OS to Android/iOS.

WOA gives you just a subset of what Win8Intel does.

WOA (Subset):
Metro Apps
Lower power draw

Win8 on Medfield (Superset):
Same Metro Apps
Same lower power draw.
+ full backward comparability with > 1million legacy apps.
+ full web use with plugins like flash.

I have yet to hear a single valid reason to chose the subset over the superset.

Dupe!

[JohnnyMindcrime]

Isn't this just a duplicate discussion to "Windows 8 Features With Linux Antecedents" above?

After all, Linux got to ARM before Windows did... :-)

Intel

[Coppit]

I've wondered if this was some sort of deal Microsoft made with Intel to avoid retribution for WoA.

Get an iPad and jail-break it

[SuperKendall]

I want to be able to write code, play with software and be the master of my own system to a level that Android and iOS does not seem to happy with.

Get an iPad and jailbreak it.

No other system makes code injection in any arbitrary application (including system applications) as easy. As a result it's an awesome hacking platform.

There also is a TON of great example code around for iOS software development and a thriving development community.

Re:Get an iPad and jail-break it

[Anonymous Coward]

And Apple there to bury your project if it appears even remotely like something that competes with them or is something that they might want to steal in the future.

Re:Why is this relevant?

[sed quid in infernos]

Android already has at least a couple of "office suite" type apps that do not pretend to be Microsoft Office. People who want to travel light are already buying either iOS or Android devices.

*shrug* None of the ANdroid office suite apps work for me. I bought a Transformer so I could do light writing. Lack of drag and drop itself was enough of a productivity killer to make it a non-starter.

A tablet device with Microsoft Office merely recompiled, is already a loser.

I don't want office on a tablet device. I want office on a device that is a laptop when I'm using office, and is a tablet when I'm doing light web browsing around the house or on the run, or consuming video (mainly on a magazine rack on an exercise machine at the gym), music, text, or comics. Basically, I'd like to be able to pull the screen off my ultrabook and use it as a tablet.

For some things a tablet form factor, with a tablet UI, works better. Writing documents, making spreadsheets, and doing the other work I do in Office are not among those things.

Re:Why is this relevant?

[shutdown -p now]

Hence why Windows 8 is not released only for ARM. People who need to run a VB6 on their application can buy an x86 tablet - all ten of them! ~

Re:Why is this relevant?

[shutdown -p now]

It's closer to Google Docs than it is to MS Office in terms of what it can do. I mean, did Numbers learn to merge cells vertically already, or at least correctly open spreadsheets that have them so merged?

Re:WOA PCs? Woah!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Joe

He's surprised that the new laptop doesn't come w/ the OS CD

You are completely out of touch with reality.

Re:Obvious *benefit* is the drivers

[AlphaWolf_HK]

The problem here though is this is akin to creating world peace by killing off all of the humans.

Re:Why is this relevant?

[Missing.Matter]

full version of Office that works well with a mouse and keyboard

So all you have to do is add a bluetooth keyboard to iPad and you get all that? Office and mouse functionality as well? Amazing!

iProducts

[tepples]

The "iMac", "iBook" (which became MacBook after Macintel), "iPod", "iLife", and "iPhone" brands share a common theme: products designed for individuals as opposed to the "Power" (later "Pro" after Macintel) products designed for business professionals. True, "iWork" complicates things.

Decline to renew

[tepples]

Microsoft has already struck patent licensing deals with most Android tablet manufacturers

How long do these deals last? I was under the impression Microsoft could decline to renew them after WOA tablets come out.

I had to 'shop it

[hackshack]

It's not a great likeness, but the imagery, oh the imagery! http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/338/ballmerbeanie.jpg/

Re:Why is this relevant?

[R3d M3rcury]

Depends on which direction you're coming from. If you're coming from the PC world, you may be right--why would I want a tablet that can't run the applications I already own?

Conversely, if you're coming from the Windows Phone world and you're looking for something that will run the applications you own (but with a bigger screen, etc.)...

Fail..

[Anonymous Coward]

"'WOA does not support running, emulating, or porting existing x86/64 desktop apps."
And there goes any chances of me ever buying any tablet or device, with Windows 8 on ARM. What's the point of having Windows on a tablet if you can ever run the same apps!?

I will just get one of those fancy netbook that can transform into a tablet... The captcha if fitting too, "Buffoons".

Re:Sorry, try again. Medfield uses PowerVR graphic

[LinuxIsGarbage]

Because intel graphics suck.

Medfield uses PowerVR licensed graphic cores. The same as Apple and many other ARM SoCs.

Intel's Z series Atom uses GMA500 graphics. GMA500 is a PowerVR licensed graphic core. Impressive hardware specs but horrendous driver support in Linux AND Windows.

Fuck you Steve Jobs

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope you burn in hell.

Re:WOA PCs? Woah!!!!

[unixisc]

Read the GP. It says that 'WOA will not be available as a software-only distribution'. In other words, all DVDs you see in any store w/ the word 'Windows' on them will be Wintel versions. The only way one will get WOA, if that is true, is pre-installed on ARM PCs.

If it is wrong, and there actually ARE both Wintel and WOA disks out there, it'll be an even bigger mess. So pick your poison!

Re:Why is this relevant?

[myxiplx]

I wouldn't count out Autodesk, they are big MS fans and have a tendency to jump on the last and greatest. At the very least I would expect a tablet compatible viewer; that allows the kinds of demonstrations that sell product.

Autocad proper will be x86 only, but there will almost certainly be some MS tablet support.

WOA has ZERO third party desktop Applications.

[guidryp]

WOA is something different, a competitor to iOS that has a Windows-esque look and feel.

There is nothing windows-esque about Metros look and feel. iOS looks more like desktop Windows than Metro does.

Where WOA claims to have an advantage over iOS is, first, that it will allow users interact with the device with a traditional desktop paradigm, if they choose.

No, All third party applications build for WOA are Metro apps. It has a couple of stopgap applications on a vestigial desktop because this functionality wasn't recoded for Metro. There is no traditional desktop paradigm for third party applicaitons and once MS re-writes Office for WinRT, there will likely be no desktop mode at all.

http://allthingsd.com/20120209/windows-on-arm-complete-with-next-version-of-office-to-arrive-with-rest-of-windows-8/

Sinofsky also said that the Windows-on-ARM machines will come with several Office apps — Word, PowerPoint, Excel and OneNote — that have been tuned to run in a very battery-efficient manner. But Sinofsky said that, although those applications will run in the traditional Windows desktop, they will be the only programs allowed to do so, other than components of Windows itself.

“There are no other compiled dekstop apps that are available,” Sinofsky told AllThingsD. All of the other apps for Windows on ARM will be the new-style “Metro” apps.

Re:WOA has ZERO third party desktop Applications.

[xigxag]

If by saying "interact...with a traditional desktop paradigm" I somehow gave you the impression that I thought somehow Metro apps could be made to work lik Windows 7 type apps, I apologize. What I meant was, to quote from your same link, "Windows on ARM will have the desktop as an option for Internet Explorer, the Office apps and various system functions, such as the control panel, file management and other built-in features of Windows," and that that familiar paradigm is a selling point for WOA devices.

Metro is also part of Windows 8. So:

If you're doing Windows desktop management, the experience will be the same on your desktop and your tablet
If you're running a traditional windows app (to the extent that you can, i.e.Office), the experience will be the same on your desktop and your tablet.
If you're running a Metro style app, the experience will be the same on your desktop and your tablet.

iOS (currently) doesn't make that claim with respect to OSX.

Re:WOA has ZERO third party desktop Applications.

[guidryp]

. What I meant was, to quote from your same link, "Windows on ARM will have the desktop as an option for Internet Explorer, the Office apps and various system functions, such as the control panel, file management and other built-in features of Windows," and that that familiar paradigm is a selling point for WOA devices.

It isn't an advantage, it's a hobbled Frankenstein.

It's only a limited vestigial desktop. It isn't like interacting with my desktop because I have dozens of little utilities, that won't be available, I third party customization that won't be available. I can't install anything. You don't even get browser plug ins.

The only reason the desktop exists on WOA, is because all the functionality isn't ready for Metro (mainly Office). Saying you can choose desktop mode implies you can run more than a office suite.

Before you start comparing WOA to Android/iOS, you first have to answer why anyone would chose WOA tablet over a Medfield Win8 tablet that has all the capability of WOA tablets, but none of the limitations.

Then it makes more sense to argue Win8x86 that isn't so limited against iOS/Android tablets.

Re:WOA has ZERO third party desktop Applications.

[xigxag]

It remains to be seen if the Medfield SOC can eke out similar battery life to an ARM powered tablet. From the little I've read on that front, the signs are mixed at best. But otherwise I totally agree. If W8/Medfield meets its goals, it will probably do the same thing to WOA that Pentium did to the Alpha/MIPS/PPC versions of WNT.