Slashdot Mirror
Windows 10 Enables Switching Between Desktop and Tablet Modes
jones_supa writes: In Windows 8, you were trapped in either the Modern UI or using the desktop, and going back and forth between the two worlds was cumbersome. Windows 10 takes a hybrid approach, allowing the user to choose between a classic desktop and a full-screen mobile experience. The feature, which has been developed under the name "Continuum," is now simply called "Tablet mode". In the build 9926 of Windows 10 Technical Preview, switching between the modes can finally be tried out. The leaked build 10036 shows that eventually you will also have the option to automate the process for dockable devices. Since Windows 10 is being positioned as the one OS for all of Microsoft's devices, being able to control the desktop and tablet experiences like this is critical to appeasing the consumer.
Clicking on one icon to switch to "metro" and then clicking on another to switch to "desktop" doesn't seem terribly cumbersome. On my tablet, search/replace click/tap.
fucked up and fucked sideways
I can't believe it took them TWO FULL VERSIONS to realize they needed the feature. This should have been implemented back in Windows 8, or 9 at least...
I art more snarky, and terse than thou. I art Slashdot!
How much does it send back to Microsoft? I have heard it is much more onerous in this regard than previous OS versions. Can anyone shed some light on the truth of that?
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
All of them at some point. This was a big one though.
I agree with this. If they get rid of a real start menu, I'll make the unwanted switch to Apple if I need another proprietary system.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
If only they put the original start menu structure back in one of those modes, maybe an 'enterprise' or 'user with 20years experience on windows' option. Still need to install 'Classic Start Menu' to make things sane. Users I deal with will never switch to metro, they love using Desktop to dump all those files they're working with, at least can boot into Desktop mode now to save metro flashing up. but.. STILL need the start menu. Have the Metro 'view' slide into place when you select that menu, but for all that's workable, PUT BACK THE START MENU.
Waiting for an amusing sig.
You're not talking about the OS, you're talking about the shell.
What do you do when you plug your tablet in a docking station and start using it with multiple displays, a keyboard and a mouse?
Get frustrated that you're stuck with a touch oriented interface, or have an OS that can change the behaviour of it's shell?
What do you do when you plug your tablet in a docking station and start using it with multiple displays, a keyboard and a mouse?
I have no idea. In probably 4-5 years of owning tablet-style devices, I have never once connected them to any external peripherals like that, nor wanted to.
Tablets are for convenient data access and occasional very light data entry. For the stuff that needs multiple displays and serious input devices, I have other tools that are much, much better at it than any tablet ever produced.
In other words, my use cases (and going by the Internet commentary, almost everyone else's use cases too) are completely different for tablets and real PCs. It makes absolutely no sense to run the same style of operating system on both of them -- not just the shell, but the file system, the process model, the security model, connectivity...
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Well I agree with GP's assertion that a 4" phone shouldn't have the same interface as a 2x21" desktop. As such one of my 'computers' runs Firefox OS and the other KDE atop debian.
But I don't have a tablet in my life. A 9" phone, running iOS or Android, that doesn't make phone calls, no thanks! What would convince me to buy a tablet would be one that comes with a fancy stand (we used to call it a docking station back in the day) that allows me to plug in all my existing peripherals and transform into a workstation OS.
MS share that vision. KDE share that vision via plasma (though their Vivaldi tablet didn't make it to market).
This marks the end of an era.
It means I will no longer have the option of using either Linux or Windows for my desktop computers. When one leaves the desktop in favor of a platform I find cumbersome, overpriced and unnecessary I am left with only one choice. Unfortunately this choice seems to be hung up on tablets and mobile systems as well. Luckally it at least have multiple flavours and some are still promising to be true to the desktop.
I am just hoping I can find proper software to continue my work without it being riddled with open source "but you can fix it yourself" issues. Open source is fine, but I do not need open bugs. Paying for software is fine as long as I do not have to pay for someone to package open source stuff and then maybe fix the bugs.
Change is good if it is for a reason but change for changes sake can be left to the bedroom walls please...
Well for the last 4-5 years I haven't owned a tablet. :) A phone can do everything a tablet can do, albeit on a tiny screen such as "convenient data access and occasional very light data entry".
What constitutes a "real PC" these days? Laptops are, for many, a desktop replacement. Touchscreens are becoming the norm because it's a 'value-add' that adds little to the purchase price. If you embed the CPU in the screen instead of the keyboard, you have the option of detaching the keyboard altogether.
Should one device perform both functions, or do we stick with the Apple mantra that you need both an iPad AND a macbook? Or the Google mantra that, increasingly, you don't need a desktop OS altogether?
And that's the problem with Microsoft. A one device fits all approach is not what people want. Computers are cheap, tablets are cheap. A tablet with the power of a computer is more expensive than an ordinary tablet, but still less powerful than an ordinary desktop. Having to buy the docking station and of course the screens, and you end up paying just as much for a tablet/desktop combination as for a separate desktop and tablet. On top of that, you only have 1 device, and can't have a backup when your one device goes down for whatever reason.
...? Create a one device fits all approach running Windows 10. So you have to buy a car that is also a house and a phone and a table and table and a ....
... simply because it's a lot easier to use.
A seemless synchronization between devices and programs adjusted to the different view modes and input methods is a lot better imo. What if there will be a new kind of device, like a smart TV, a smart radio in your car, a smart light switch,
What is wrong with creating a device that does one thing and does it good? When I eat, I use a fork and a knife, and not a swiss army knife that includes a fork, knife, screw driver, pincet,
To be fair, the app store does have a kickass free pinball game. :-)
With Classic Shell 8.1 works fine for me. A much stabler OS, updates install with no issues. I can't see myself needing Cortana, if 10 doesn't allow Classic Shell, free upgrade or not, I'll stick with what I know works for me.
I understand the logic of having apps run in full screen for small tablets by default. But this does not justify having two kinds of apps, none of which run in both modes. Either it's a classic desktop app without multitouch/orientation switch support, or a metro app that can not open multiple windows (can it even be tiled with other apps these days?).
What Microsoft should have done in Windows 8 is provide a framework for creating tablet-friendly apps which are ALSO usable desktop apps without any handicaps. In fact, they should have required 1st class experience on both tablet and desktop to be included in Windows Store.
What's wrong with having one device with the capability of satisfying both use cases?
I don't have one phone for text messages and another for phone calls and yet another for light web browsing when I'm not at a computer despite there being a compromises - on-screen keyboard for text messaging because web browsing requires larger screen - bigger device to hold up to my head for making phone calls.
If a tablet sized device can provide the power to perform desktop activities, why restrict it with software?
In other words, my use cases (and going by the Internet commentary, almost everyone else's use cases too) are completely different for tablets and real PCs. It makes absolutely no sense to run the same style of operating system on both of them
After the demise of 10 inch laptops, fans of that form factor have had to make do with things like Surface Pro and Transformer Book, which are Windows tablets with keyboards.
...but I'm finding Win 8 as a switch-hit tablet/sorta-netbook is working pretty well for me. I've been using both Windows and various Linux desktop distros for decades now, waiting for someone to put together an OS that would alternatively do the tablet thing, then do desktop with a BT keyboard and mouse. Ubuntu seems to be heading there, but Win 8 actually does a passable job in both modes. I'm running it on a cheapie WinBook from Microcenter with 2GB RAM and 32GB flash as C:. And then, to add insult to injury, IE 11 is the best tablet browser I've tried, and I've tried quite a few. I still use Firefox when in the desktop, as well as all my old Windows desktop applications, but I try to Metro-app in Metro when at all possible. Thing is, when in desktop, get out the mouse and keyboard; the screen is too small for fingering around. But I'm finding Metro to be like any other device; you've gotta spend a little time figuring it out, but there's nothing onerous about it, well, maybe the app killing thing.
I wanted Ubuntu to get there first, but it is my studied opinion that Windows is ahead in tablet/desktop switch-hitting. So there; flame away, I've already attracted my mate so I don't have to worry about how I look, smell, or are regarded your eyes... :D
Yeah, this could have been a good idea - have the 'desktop' icon actually be a VM icon, say Virtual PC, and have 2 versions of it - a 64-bit 7 and a 32-bit XP. Whenever someone wants to run a 32-bit program, invoke XP and run it like that, in a XP mode VM. If one wants to run a 64-bit program, invoke 7 and run it like that in a 7 mode VM. Oh, and have an easy way to kill the VMs so that they don't end up hogging CPU cycles & battery if the device in question is a laptop or tablet, as opposed to a PC or server.
Also, what I've been told - in 10, the Windows Phone OS and Windows will both be identical (aside from the CPU level binary differences), and the store will have common apps for both. For instance, right now, you can download Yelp! on Windows Phone, but not from an Atom based tablet. In 10, any app that's there on the phone will be there for the tablet, and vice versa. I'm assuming that apps that require cellular connections (like calling apps) might be an exception.
This is certainly good news, since there are some things that my Windows tablet can do quite handily, but while Windows Phone has those apps, the tablet doesn't. Downside could be that legacy Windows apps (from, say, 7) may not work, if the only way of getting things installed in a laptop or tablet would be over the internet. Next week, I'll see whether I can get the technical preview on my tablet
Will this be upgradable to 10, though? I too bought a Winbook from them, but knowing that the $69 one would be limited, particularly since the integrated flash is just 16GB and almost completely eaten by the OS, I went for the $99 version. 2GB RAM and 32GB flash. Can definitely support Windows 10 - we're now talking about the 32-bit version here, not 64-bit, which would suck on these configurations. I also bought a 64GB SD card (which is the max that this thing can handle), and retargeted My Documents and everything to reside on this, rather than the integrated 32GB flash. That way, I have space for my apps, which typically can't be installed on a SD card, while ensuring that ALL data, not just my photos & videos, are there on the SD card.
I take it you've never used a Surface? The Surface Pro 3 is a valid laptop replacement, we use them across the board at my current job and they work well. Tablet in the meeting room, docked at desk to dual 24" monitors, keyboard and mouse giving 3 full HD desktops. This is the MS vision, if your use case doesn't suit, that doesn't mean most of the corporate world doesn't. And this is the target market for MS.
Really, great feature. Ok, now, let's be practical: can Linux be installed over windows-10 as usual?
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
There will be this cool new interface. Maybe called "Viewpoints". You will be able to open several different apps at the same time and see them in different parts of the screen. Special technology will let you resize them, but without any API for programmers to know how big the "Viewpoints" are. You will be able to move them about, even close them. Who knows there might even be an "ActionBar" at the bottom so you can see what Viewpoints are open.
Progress in computer science is mainly achieved by finding new names for old ideas.
What do you do when you plug your tablet in a docking station and start using it with multiple displays, a keyboard and a mouse?
I have no idea. In probably 4-5 years of owning tablet-style devices, I have never once connected them to any external peripherals like that, nor wanted to.
Tablets are for convenient data access and occasional very light data entry. For the stuff that needs multiple displays and serious input devices, I have other tools that are much, much better at it than any tablet ever produced.
In other words, my use cases (and going by the Internet commentary, almost everyone else's use cases too) are completely different for tablets and real PCs. It makes absolutely no sense to run the same style of operating system on both of them -- not just the shell, but the file system, the process model, the security model, connectivity...
I thought the same. Until I actually bought one. Ignore the word docking station, just look at the typecover for the Surface to see what the GP really is talking about. The switch from consumption device to production device is seamless.
I bought a Surface Pro. I've not used my laptop or my tablet since. The switch between tablet mode and desktop mode is a little rusty but was greatly improved in windows 8.1 and I have high hopes for windows 10. I don't miss having a "consumption" device (and whoever had that idea needs to be buried under a mountain of unsold Galaxy Tabs).
Surface Pro 3.
I haven't used the docking station personally and the single USB port is limiting without it, but I know someone who's Pro 3 is their primary computer docking station, 4k display, keyboard, mouse and all. On the road it's a tablet with a cover that folds into a convenient laptop, at home it's a replacement for the box under the desk and you'd be none the wiser that he is using it unless you look in his bank account. Convenience costs money.
Tablet in the meeting room, docked at desk to dual 24" monitors, keyboard and mouse giving 3 full HD desktops. This is the MS vision, if your use case doesn't suit, that doesn't mean most of the corporate world doesn't.
Given that Windows 8 has been a Vista-scale catatrophe for Microsoft, I think by now it's safe to say overall the corporate world doesn't buy into that vision either.
Again, the things these devices are useful for in meetings are not necessarily the same things they are useful for when someone is working alone at a desk. So far, it appears that trying to fit the same modes of operation into both boxes just results in a mediocre compromise that isn't very good at either set of tasks.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
What's wrong with having one device with the capability of satisfying both use cases?
Nothing, as long as it satisfies both use cases as well as two dedicated devices would, or at least close enough not to make any meaningful difference.
This is not what I saw with Windows 8, however. Instead, what you got was a least common denominator. Reducing desktop workstation and tablet to a least common denominator does to the workstation roughly what reducing gaming console and power-gamer PC to a least common denominator does to the power-gamer PC. That is, it's such a poor substitute in both power and usability that the serious end of the market doesn't really consider it an alternative at all. You're just hoping there's enough of the market willing to pay real money for something that isn't very good to get away with it.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
What constitutes a "real PC" these days? Laptops are, for many, a desktop replacement.
True enough, but how much of that is because they're better at doing the job, and how much is just convenience for people making the purchasing decision?
If you actually do work away from your desk a significant amount of the time, or use your computer in different places around the home, a laptop offers a genuine advantage. And if you have an organisation where many/most of your staff are in that category, consistency among your users might be a genuine advantage for purchasing and technical support purposes as well.
Otherwise, compared to a "real PC", a laptop is often just a more expensive system with lower performance, lower storage capacity, fewer display options, worse ergonomics, limited connectivity... Of course as technology improves the distinctions will probably become finer and less of a concern, but we are still a long way from parity.
Touchscreens are becoming the norm because it's a 'value-add' that adds little to the purchase price.
A 'value-add', really? I suggest that touchscreens on laptops are becoming a common sight for much the same reason that "smart" TVs are: it's not because many customers actually want or need them, it's simply that a plain system the customer bought a couple of years ago is now perfectly capable of providing excellent results for several more years anyway, so manufacturers need to create a gimmick and then convince you via their advertising efforts that you need that gimmick so you should spend more money with them.
Should one device perform both functions, or do we stick with the Apple mantra that you need both an iPad AND a macbook? Or the Google mantra that, increasingly, you don't need a desktop OS altogether?
To me, an iPad (running iOS and simple apps) and a MacBook (running OS X and full applications) might both be useful for quite different tasks, so if fruity technology is your preference then I would tend to agree with Apple here.
I find Google's position on almost everything to be favourable to Google but rarely an acceptable alternative to incumbent technologies for everyone else. Google, like a lot of "cloud" services, provide the software equivalent of those touchscreens and smart TVs I mentioned above. Looking objectively, most of their web applications are so limited and often so short-lived that I find it hard to take them seriously.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
So don't you think they're introducing this mode switch so you can switch between two interfaces, instead of trying to make one interface fit both use cases?
Given that Windows 8 has been a Vista-scale catatrophe for Microsoft, I think by now it's safe to say overall the corporate world doesn't buy into that vision either.
Yes, but if you try and understand what sucks about Win 8, most of it will be (hopefully) be fixed with Win 10. So just as Win7 was a relative success, I can;t see why Win 10 won't be the same.
Again, the things these devices are useful for in meetings are not necessarily the same things they are useful for when someone is working alone at a desk.
No not necessarily, but in most instances, Office people use Office apps (Outlook, Word, Excel, Web etc), and for that a Surface does the job of a tablet, laptop and desktop quite sufficiently.
Well, that's effectively what the Microsoft Surface Pro 3 is - a tablet with keyboard for screen cover and touchscreen. The iPad comes close with a BT keyboard, but it's limited to just the iOS world. The Surface Pro 3 is x86 Windows and PC architecture. In addition, the Surface Pro 3 also had a Docking Station with a single mini-display port.
I'm not a fan of the Windows 8, 8.1, and 10 GUI, but at least MS if forward thinking in leap-frogging to convergence here. So while I get and agree with the new paradigm concept, MS also botched the OS implementation horribly!!! And that's the travesty, it could have been executed so much better. Simply put, it's not a hardware limitation, but one of corporate management and direction.
Life is not for the lazy.
> Most people do NOT want an operating system that is for both a tablet, and for a normal computer.
I do. I'm tired of lugging around a full-sized Dell laptop when I travel, and I like to read whenever I'm in ever-shrinking airplane space. So, I do want a tablet that'll step up to laptop/desktop functionality when I sit down at whatever desk they come up with for me at the places to which I travel.
And, while I am ever hopeful that a Linux distro will step up to the switch-hit tablet/laptop challenge, it is my humble opinion that Microsoft is making better progress in getting there. Not perfect, at this point, but definitely useable.
Do they use it because it is different, or because it is not possible? e.g. causation and correlation.
I have an Acer laptop with a detachable keyboard (or a tablet with an attachable keyboard) that I use as laptop/tablet. I also connect a screen to it (remote, but still) and use it as a desktop.
I have a more powerfull PC, so I bought a pretty light one, but I am sure it would be powerfull enough to be a laptop/tablet/desktop for many users who only do basic stuff. Having a real keyboard/mouse/monitor connected to it is all and I still can take it with me with its 11" (I think) and evn just use it as a tablet if I so desire.
So yes, uses ARE different, but that does not mean that the core hardware needs to be and if the software is able to adapt, it is the best.
COmpare it to using GNOME in tablet mode, KDE for portable mode and XFCE if ou want to do real work on your desktop.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
I'm running it on a cheapie WinBook from Microcenter with 2GB RAM and 32GB flash as C:. And then, to add insult to injury, IE 11 is the best tablet browser I've tried, and I've tried quite a few. I still use Firefox when in the desktop, as well as all my old Windows desktop applications, but I try to Metro-app in Metro when at all possible. Thing is, when in desktop, get out the mouse and keyboard; the screen is too small for fingering around.
The advent of cheap Win8.1 tablets and lack of a "Metro Mode" in Firefox is really going to bite Mozilla in the ass. Hopefully they will reconsider adding that feature back in as even with Australis, Firefox on a Winbook TW802 is a bit annoying to use. I have tried running the Android version of Firefox thru DuOS as an alternative, and its mildly better to use, but still not as slick as IE11 in the tablet UX area.
Yes, but if you try and understand what sucks about Win 8, most of it will be (hopefully) be fixed with Win 10.
I think the marketing problem for Microsoft is that, for desktop/laptop users, most of it was not broken in Windows 7 anyway. Windows 10 can't just be about fixing the things they got wrong with Windows 8. It needs to have some significant benefits as well, or everyone who's on Windows 7 today will just stay there and not upgrade.
No not necessarily, but in most instances, Office people use Office apps (Outlook, Word, Excel, Web etc), and for that a Surface does the job of a tablet, laptop and desktop quite sufficiently.
But for those uses, a laptop does the job just fine anyway, and people who go to a lot of meetings probably take their laptop with them already. What extra benefit do they get for having a more complicated and expensive device like a Surface?
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
The thing is, I don't think it's just the shell interfaces for Windows that matter. The entire way people use the device is usually different. Are you working with multiple applications at once? Is your data associated with a specific application or stored within a more structured filesystem that you can see? Do you install software with a lot of flexibility and many options, or does the software concentrate on simplicity and need minimal configuration?
Like smartphones, I think tablets have been successful precisely because of their simplicity. Tasks like installing software so you can use your device to do interesting things should not require any more effort than choosing the software you want and if necessary paying for it, but Windows is awful for this, OS X isn't much better, and Linux is OK as long as exactly the software you need is available from your distro but otherwise it's a joke. Smartphones and tablets came along, with their app store model but also with the simple "home screen" style of launching apps and usually with a single app visible at once, and made all that horrible complexity go away, and that's why non-geeks love them.
Of course, there is a price to pay for that simplicity: the software isn't as powerful and flexible as the kinds of applications we run on desktop/laptop systems. The tablet/smartphone UI style doesn't scale to more demanding tasks and can't cope with the kinds of complicated interactions that, for example, an office worker manipulating a spreadsheet needs all the time.
So for that, we come back to a desktop/laptop style of UI, with a real keyboard and mouse. Once you've got those, although a touch screen might be useful occasionally, it's mostly just a gimmick anyway.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
I've never owned a Windows 8 (or 8.1) anything. There are good reasons for that, starting with the fact that I've used Windows 8. ;-)
But seriously, you give an excellent example of the real problem here. Tablets are valuable precisely for their simplicity and because they work with minimal configuration. The idea that anyone should need to run a tool like regedit to be able to use a tablet-style device properly is just... bizarre.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Let's hope he becomes the Windows designer in chief.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
I use my tablet both ways, at different times. On the plane, tablet/metro. In the hotel room, I'll prop it up, connect the keyboard and mouse, and it's laptop/desktop. Soooo, I don't want to hard-code Metro on my tablet.
Not logic. Just the way I'm working..... :D
In your first paragraph you say you don't think it's just about the shell, but what you've gone on to described is the shell (the interface between the operating system and the user)
The rest of your post is confusing installation simplicity with application complexity. The two are not tied together.
Lots of people can get along just fine with a tablet, and no laptop or desktop. Tablets are good for email, light web browsing, simple games, and light word processing, and that's all some people do with their laptops or desktops. I'm happy with smartphone and laptop and eInk eReader, myself, and have found no personal use for a tablet. I'm not interested in something that tries to be both a laptop and a tablet.
I have no idea what lots of other people need.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
In your first paragraph you say you don't think it's just about the shell, but what you've gone on to described is the shell
The shell is important, but it's only worth as much as the underlying models the operating system provides. For example, the underlying file system has nothing to do with the shell. Nor do the security model or any related control of application installation and permissions systems. Nor do the process model and any mechanisms for inter-process communication.
The rest of my post, referring to how applications are installed, was an example. The point is that on tablet/smartphone devices, everything is simplified/dumbed down [delete as applicable] in the same way. The average tablet/smartphone app is designed to do one simple task using simple interactions. To my knowledge, no-one has yet written a smartphone or tablet app that is anywhere close to the complexity and flexibility that major desktop apps routinely offer.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
The file system?
You mean how Android uses ext4, the same as all current Linux distributions? Pretty much the same kernel too.
Permissions?
It's implemented in Android as file system permissions. When an app is granted certain permissions, its user is added to specific groups.
as for complex software, there's nothing stopping anyone from doing it, apart from hardware performance and target audience.
No user of any popular tablet or smartphone today, Android or otherwise, is exposed to the kinds of internal implementation details you mentioned. The APIs provided by both iOS and Android are very much geared to the per-app/sandbox model used by apps on those systems, and even on Android, you wouldn't normally be messing around with a FHS-style directory tree the way Linux desktop or server applications would.
Anyway, I don't know whether you are wilfully missing the point just to troll or you really can't understand that there are fundamental differences between tablet/smartphone and desktop/laptop use cases beyond the cosmetic details of their shells, but further discussion here seems unlikely to get us anywhere useful.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
I think the marketing problem for Microsoft is that, for desktop/laptop users, most of it was not broken in Windows 7 anyway. Windows 10 can't just be about fixing the things they got wrong with Windows 8. It needs to have some significant benefits as well, or everyone who's on Windows 7 today will just stay there and not upgrade.
It ain't broke don't fix only works in a static or slow moving environment. In fast paced IT, it's keep up or die. Win 7 was great fro desktops but missed the whole mobile revolution that occured after it's release. Win8 attempted to fix this (poorly). The converged OS is still a good idea IMO, it just needs to be tweaked to better suit the needs of it's customers. Win10 may do that, it may not, only time will tell.
But for those uses, a laptop does the job just fine anyway, and people who go to a lot of meetings probably take their laptop with them already. What extra benefit do they get for having a more complicated and expensive device like a Surface?
That's 2010 thinking. I work in a Surface only workplace. They aren't perfect, but slowly even the die-hards are losing the Laptop mentality. The cost of a Surface is similar to a Macbook Air (which is the de facto standard around here), but you get touch and stylus input, and native support for all the Office apps out of the box.
I accept that they aren't for everyone, but if you want a generic machine that does most things it ticks the box. For corporates, this is a no-brainer, and MS are aware of that. All they need to do is to get Win10 to be "good enough".
It ain't broke don't fix only works in a static or slow moving environment. In fast paced IT, it's keep up or die. Win 7 was great fro desktops but missed the whole mobile revolution that occured after it's release.
OK, but why should Windows, an OS designed for desktop and server user, also be the product they offer in the mobile space?
Let's be blunt: Microsoft are an also-ran in the mobile space, but they still dominate the desktop. Offering something actively worse on desktop in a half-hearted attempt to enter mobile makes no sense for them.
That's 2010 thinking. I work in a Surface only workplace. They aren't perfect, but slowly even the die-hards are losing the Laptop mentality. The cost of a Surface is similar to a Macbook Air (which is the de facto standard around here), but you get touch and stylus input, and native support for all the Office apps out of the box.
Well, my 2010 thinking still seems to be 2015 thinking according to most of the business world, judging by how little success Surface seems to have enjoyed so far.
And again, you still haven't given a single reason that the Surface is better than just buying a laptop and running Office on that, which has been the norm for probably a decade and change. Touch and stylus input is only an advantage if they actually help you to do something useful. What is objectively better about your day because you all use a Surface? Do you do some things faster, or more accurately, or with better quality results? If so, how, and why is the hybrid device an advantage for you?
Just going by your previous post, I'm not sure how far Microsoft would get with a sales pitch that their new and trendy gear for 2015 is not worse than what we've had since the early 2000s and costs (at current UK prices I just checked) only 2-3x as much as numerous perfectly serviceable business laptops that will all run Office just fine.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
But everything you've said is a function of the shell.
You've failed to understand the difference between the shell and the rest of the OS.
You seem to think approximately 100% of what an OS does is the shell. Take a look at, say, these Apple docs, and look at how many of the services provided by iOS are specifically geared towards working on a simple/mobile/touchscreen style of device. In contrast, very little of what is described there is specific to any particular UI.
For example, having an OS where the process model distinguishes a single foreground process and multiple background processes has nothing to do with whether to move an app to the background you swipe, push a Home key, or throw your tablet to the ground in frustration. Such a process model is likely to be relevant to a tablet or smartphone, but probably not to a desktop or server OS.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
The services that provide the mobile/touchscreen interfaces come from the window manager.
I can install debian on a PC and choose KDE or GNOME as the UI. Each of those desktop environments provide different API's for applications to use.
The operating system is the same - Debian GNU/Linux.
I can also choose to leave the operating system without a desktop environment all together.
You can't argue it's a different operating system when I choose to install a different desktop environment.
For example, having an OS where the process model distinguishes a single foreground process and multiple background processes
You're describing Windows 3.x, Windows 95, 98 and ME. They all distinguished the foreground process from the background ones.
You can't argue it's a different operating system when I choose to install a different desktop environment.
I haven't argued that, or anything close to it, anywhere in this entire thread. The examples I've mentioned have mostly been about things like the process and security models, which would be the same regardless of any particular style of UI you build on top, but might have different priorities for mobile, touchscreen, very user-friendly devices than they have for desktop or server environments.
You're describing Windows 3.x, Windows 95, 98 and ME. They all distinguished the foreground process from the background ones.
And it worked so well that no popular desktop or server OS has promoted such a distinction for well over a decade.
However, if you're designing an OS where the user typically interacts with single apps in isolation -- as is the case for tablets and smartphones -- and where you have more limited system resources and a need to conserve battery power -- again, as is the case for tablets and smartphones -- then naturally your basic assumptions will be different.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
OK, but why should Windows, an OS designed for desktop and server user, also be the product they offer in the mobile space?
Because MS recognise they fell asleep in the mobile space, and now woken up obviously feel a converged OS would work best. I can't see why one OS can't work, as long as the switchability can be controlled by the user. This is where they screwed up in Win 8.
Well, my 2010 thinking still seems to be 2015 thinking according to most of the business world, judging by how little success Surface seems to have enjoyed so far.
I agree there is slow take up, but I believe that is the direction the world is heading. It might not be MS hardware, but some sort of convertible tablet satisfies most general requirements for most people, most of the time.
And again, you still haven't given a single reason that the Surface is better than just buying a laptop and running Office on that, which has been the norm for probably a decade and change.
Laptops have become only really wide spread in the last 6 or 7 years as prices came down. Prior to that was desktops with laptops only for the Execs and road warriors, and before that typewriters. After laptops will be convertibles or hybrids, then probably something else.
Touch and stylus input is only an advantage if they actually help you to do something useful. What is objectively better about your day because you all use a Surface? Do you do some things faster, or more accurately, or with better quality results? If so, how, and why is the hybrid device an advantage for you?
Why do people use iPads? you can do all that on a laptop too if you try hard enough? Having the ability to use a full powered machine at your desk, then walk off with it to a meeting where you can use it as a tablet for hand written notes (with a stylus rather than your finger) and diagrams is very convenient. I've used mine as a whiteboard which can be shared via Webex and it's a shitload easier with a stylus than a mouse.
When I'm on the bus to and from work, the tablet form factor is a lot easier to use than try to wedge a laptop with attached keyboard into the cramped space. Same goes for air travel. I accept this is not for everyone, but for a lot of people these are real benefits.
Just going by your previous post, I'm not sure how far Microsoft would get with a sales pitch that their new and trendy gear for 2015 is not worse than what we've had since the early 2000s and costs (at current UK prices I just checked) only 2-3x as much as numerous perfectly serviceable business laptops that will all run Office just fine.
Not sure what you classify as a business laptop. These sell in the region of $2k (Australian dollars) for HP, Dell or Lenovo with decent processor, memory and hi-res screen. A Surface Pro 3 costs a little less than that. The benefits are power, weight, resolution, battery life, and flexibility. I'd like to see which business grade laptops you are buying for a third the price of a Surface Pro.
Laptops have become only really wide spread in the last 6 or 7 years as prices came down. Prior to that was desktops with laptops only for the Execs and road warriors, and before that typewriters.
Interesting comment. Here in the UK, I'd say laptops have been ubiquitous (meaning that anyone who had a plausible need for one would probably have one) since the early 2000s. Certainly that was true at every employer I worked for back then and more recently for every client I work with today. By 6-7 years ago, even the students all seemed to have laptops.
Why do people use iPads? you can do all that on a laptop too if you try hard enough?
An iPad is far more portable: you can't put a laptop in your handbag, or hold it in one hand while you sit on the sofa reading an e-book.
An iPad is also very much simpler and easier to use.
One of these is about the hardware, while the other is about the style of software you run on it, but both are fundamental, qualitative distinctions between today's tablets and laptops, and today's hybrids are still much closer to the laptop side.
Not sure what you classify as a business laptop. These sell in the region of $2k (Australian dollars) for HP, Dell or Lenovo with decent processor, memory and hi-res screen.
We are living in different worlds. I have just looked up what I could buy if I walked to multiple stores within 15 minutes of where I'm sitting now and picked something up off the shelf.
There are numerous models of laptop, from well-known brands such as those you mentioned, with at least an i5, 8GB of RAM, an SSD, and a 15" screen, for well under £500 (a little under AUS$1,000). Such a powerful machine is easily sufficient for any normal business use.
Even with a tighter budget, it looks like I could have a choice of laptops with a slightly lower spec (i3, 4GB, HDD, 13" screen), still easily capable of running things like Office and web browsers, in my hands in 20 minutes for not much over £300.
Of course if you do want to spend silly money, you can buy a laptop with a 300dpi class screen or go with Apple products, and they'll happily double the price or more, but that is totally unnecessary for a basic office system.
So, that's laptops, but what about hybrids? It's hard to do direct comparisons because of all the minor spec variations, but in general the price premium to get a convertible laptop/tablet device with an otherwise similar spec to the laptops appears to be about a factor of 2x today. The Surface Pro seems to be particularly bad: you can't even buy it from any of the local stores I looked up, and the on-line price for a Surface Pro 3 around the i5/8GB/SSD level (but with a much smaller screen than the laptops I was looking at) is well over £1,000.
Any way you look at it, the idea that a hybrid doesn't have a significant price premium just doesn't stack up. The only way hybrids are cheaper than laptops, at least here in the UK, is if you consider a close to top-of-the-range MacBook to be a normal business laptop, but you're willing to accept an overall much lower spec for your hybrid just to get the convertible form factor.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Interesting comment. Here in the UK, I'd say laptops have been ubiquitous (meaning that anyone who had a plausible need for one would probably have one) since the early 2000s. Certainly that was true at every employer I worked for back then and more recently for every client I work with today. By 6-7 years ago, even the students all seemed to have laptops.
The Desktop was still a mainstream device in 2008. Vendor sales figures back that up. Unlike now when they are pretty much dead.
An iPad is far more portable:
As portable as a Surface Pro. Get it now?
We are living in different worlds. I have just looked up what I could buy if I walked to multiple stores within 15 minutes of where I'm sitting now and picked something up off the shelf.
There are numerous models of laptop, from well-known brands such as those you mentioned, with at least
You seem to be unaware of what constitutes "business-grade". Please list the actual models for comparison. For example, a Dell Latitude 7000 is a standard business laptop. Business grade means long term vendor hardware support and warranty, robust chassis, and high res screen as a minimum. These things alone can double the price. If you an unsure ask any vendor Account Manager for details
Of course if you do want to spend silly money, you can buy a laptop with a 300dpi class screen or go with Apple products, and they'll happily double the price or more, but that is totally unnecessary for a basic office system.
It is completely necessary if you work with professionals who spend 40 hours plus/week using their machines productively.
The Desktop was still a mainstream device in 2008.
I didn't say it wasn't. I just said those who had a business need for laptops typically all had them by then.
I also mentioned that even a lot of students were arriving at university with their own laptops by 2008, and those machines were perfectly capable of dealing with their coursework, even for the CS or math students who might need a bit of real processing power at times.
But we're drifting off the topic here. My point was that laptops have been just fine for many years at doing the kinds of work people used to need a desktop for. Even entry-level laptops today are absolute beasts in performance and storage compared to what the high-end machines had a few years ago, and somehow people still managed to type a document in Word using them. You don't need some magical new class of hybrid device to get work done.
[An iPad is] as portable as a Surface Pro.
Don't be silly. Just looking at the physical dimensions, the Surface Pro 3 is two inches longer, over an inch wider, about 50% deeper and about twice as heavy compared to the iPad Air 2. It needs to be to accommodate the keyboard and a screen large enough for laptop-style uses, and you see similar distinctions between most convertible/hybrid devices and most large tablets. And there are plenty of tablets that are a bit smaller for added convenience, such as the iPad Mini, Galaxy Tab 7", etc.
If you're carrying your gear around in a laptop case anyway, those differences might not matter. However, for ladies who prefer to carry something in their handbag, they make a huge difference, and for gents, the smaller tablets will even fit in a coat or suit jacket pocket.
It's also common for people to hold a tablet in one hand just like, say, an e-reader. It's hard to imagine many people doing that with these larger, convertible devices. They're just too big for that kind of use over extended periods, and anything with a full-size, standard-layout keyboard always will be.
You seem to be unaware of what constitutes "business-grade". Please list the actual models for comparison.
Seriously? Are you really arguing that an i5, 8GB RAM, SSD, 15" screen laptop (the spec I gave before) is not sufficient for everyday business use? It's a wonder we ever managed to get anything done on computers more than a couple of years ago. </sarcasm>
I'm not going to bother citing specific machines, because basically every machine I was looking at before -- the ones I could buy off the shelf in a few minutes for around the £500 mark, from well-known brands like HP and Lenovo -- had a higher spec than the entry-level Latitude 14 7000 for half its price, and getting anything close to spec parity would still more than double the cost.
Yes, you can buy expensive support plans from the likes of Dell, but again the Latitude 14 7000 right off Dell's site only includes a 3-year warranty for that price, and even the laptops I was looking at from my local John Lewis store -- hardly a business-centric supplier -- typically came with a minimum of a two-year warranty. I see no indication that the Microsoft Surface Pro 3 price I found, right on the Microsoft Store web site, comes with the kind of long-term, rapid-response business support you seem to think is essential either.
The only qualitative difference I can see with the Dell is that you get that next-business-day on-site support. But for a more than 100% mark-up and given that the dominant cost of hardware failures is usually the immediate downtime and then the recovery time, that seems like the kind of deal only a Corporate CIO who went to school with a Dell VP could think was a good investment. I've worked at big companies that used Dell as a supplier and talked with the IT guys who had to actually use those support contracts, and not one of them thought it was actually worth it.
In any case, again we're drifting off the topi
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
But we're drifting off the topic here. My point was that laptops have been just fine for many years at doing the kinds of work people used to need a desktop for. Even entry-level laptops today are absolute beasts in performance and storage compared to what the high-end machines had a few years ago, and somehow people still managed to type a document in Word using them. You don't need some magical new class of hybrid device to get work done.
You don't need anything. But given the choice, in the business market, which Microsoft are targeting, a Hybrid solves more problems.
Don't be silly. Just looking at the physical dimensions, the Surface Pro 3 is two inches longer, over an inch wider, about 50% deeper and about twice as heavy compared to the iPad Air 2. It needs to be to accommodate the keyboard and a screen large enough for laptop-style uses, and you see similar distinctions between most convertible/hybrid devices and most large tablets. And there are plenty of tablets that are a bit smaller for added convenience, such as the iPad Mini, Galaxy Tab 7", etc.
If you're carrying your gear around in a laptop case anyway, those differences might not matter. However, for ladies who prefer to carry something in their handbag, they make a huge difference, and for gents, the smaller tablets will even fit in a coat or suit jacket pocket.
It's also common for people to hold a tablet in one hand just like, say, an e-reader. It's hard to imagine many people doing that with these larger, convertible devices.
You don't have to imagine it, I see it everyday.
And you have demonstrated the exact problem perfectly here. Above you mentioned why laptops do the job, now your saying why tablets do. So what do you choose, one or the other, or both? With a hybrid that problem is solved.
Seriously?
Yes seriously because you're into your this response but still avoiding this crucial point. A business needs more than just a standard of performance, it needs all the other fluffy bits too. Just because you don't understand this doesn't make it wrong.
The only qualitative difference I can see with the Dell is that you get that next-business-day on-site support. But for a more than 100% mark-up and given that the dominant cost of hardware failures is usually the immediate downtime and then the recovery time, that seems like the kind of deal only a Corporate CIO who went to school with a Dell VP could think was a good investment. I've worked at big companies that used Dell as a supplier and talked with the IT guys who had to actually use those support contracts, and not one of them thought it was actually worth it.
That's why those guys are still working in the helpdesk and not managing departments.
I already explained the difference in my last post, but I'll try again since you are struggling with it.
When you manage a fleet of hundreds or thousands of machines, you want them all to be as similar as possible. You want them the same so that your support people only have to learn as few systems as possible, so your support costs are lower, and that any issues are as minimal as possible. In business, downtime costs money, so spending a little extra to minimise this is cost effective. Buying one off machines because the sticker price is cheaper is a false economy. The few dollars you save end up costing you thousands to manage and support.
In any case, again we're drifting off the topic. The original point was to do a like-for-like comparison, so we're just looking at the cost overhead of moving from laptop to hybrid. Obviously the hybrid-style devices I was looking at from the same stores for price comparison purposes were coming with a similar level of warranty terms and customer support, and they were still about 2x as expensive for like-for-like specs.
Because you're comparing apples with oranges as I've explai