Discussion on:

Focus on iPad development instead of Windows 8 for now

You seem to suggest in your article that Windows "tablets" will not run legacy applications or Join active directory domains. THAT IS WRONG!!! you subsituted RT with Tablet. However RT represents windows operating system on ARM, this will not run legacy applicaitons, but INTEL WILL BE CREATING TABLETS TOO, not only ARM. This will run with legacy applications and active directory domains. So please before you spout incorrect nonsense on your website, check that what your saying is accurately correct!!!

Justin,

I was shocked you didn't specify the difference between Windows 8 tablets which will run on Intel's newer atom architecture (or compatible) which will be fully capable of running legacy apps making it more than ideal for business users and Windows RT which will basically go head to head with the iPad on ARM. I myself will primarily be recommending Intel based tablets for their flexibility and ability to replace the desktop as well as functioning as the portable device. And as someone who has used win8 as their primary OS, I have to say that the common complaints re the gui have some but little merit. I have had almost no issues issues with my Slate. I can print, dock, develop on, develop for, support my customers with my traditional desktop tools and enjoy leisurely computing on a Windows device from my couch for the first time in years. Overall, I'd say that Windows 8 has much more going for it then the competing platforms when you take away the marketing hype and brand trending.

... and if you've read my previous articles, you'll know that I'm excited for them. In fact, my current tech plan is to get a slate or x86/x64 tablet or a "convertible" or whatever is available with Windows 8 on it. As you say, there are a lot of great advantages to them over other tablets.

But... my personal preference does not change the fact that Windows 8 is already losing tons of steam thanks to the near universal dislike of the UI (again, if you've been reading for a while, you know I keep saying that the experience on a proper touch screen is going to be a lot better than trying it on a VM on a desktop machine), and OEMs are unlikely to put any money into x86/x64 tablets and will focus their attention on x86/x64 slates, "convertibles", unltranotebooks, etc., which have gone nowhere with consumers.

And yes, I consider those to be a great option for IT departments... but an IT department choosing between a $1,500 ultranotebook or slate and a $600 iPad is going to take the iPad nearly every time.

J.Ja

I would compare the "near universal dislike" to any other flaming in any other forum. For example, the near universal dislike of iOS by Android fans and vice versa but when you look at marketshare, that's not entirely accurate. I've found as many articles in support of Metro as I have against it and more often than not, the typical complaint is the dual function of Windows 8 and how odd it may seem to a user but not usually metro specifically which is what more developers than not would target for app development. I don't want to get into the specifics of how testing a device is different from using it daily for specific purposes but at this point, I wouldn't place too much weight on the first impressions of a beta OS even if it is near completion. Alot of the dislike stems from the anticipation of difficulty in use which for the most part may not turn out to be true if the average user is presented with a tutorial. But there is some truth to the idea that negative outlook by the tech crowd affect sales to non tech users.

... that 'near universal dislike' is by current Windows users who can't stand the Metro interface. But there are more serious problems involved too, of which you seem to either ignore or are unaware.

There is one absolute problem with putting Windows on a tablet which has persisted for 11 years now--there simply isn't any touch-centric application on desktop Windows (including Windows 8) that would make the tablet form factor truly functional. In other words, Win8RT is the only version that is really viable for tablets at this time. That is, assuming other developers run into the same kind of issues Justin has. Without apps, the form factor will stagnate just as it has for the last decade. Without developers, there are no apps. Without support for those developers, well, fewer developers, right?

The problem is that the majority of testers of the Win8 beta have overwhelmingly declared they hate the Metro interface. To be honest, the Metro-like interface is the only one that's truly functional on a tablet form factor right now. Ergo, if you want a tablet you're stuck with the RT version of Win8.

Metro is generally hated by users who have used it on a desktop or laptop that is not touch capable.
And I am sure Microsoft had to expect this, people hate change, and people really hate change that effects them daily, and people really really hate change that negatively effects them daily.

... they seem to change their tune and ask, "why wasn't it done this way all along?"

Im not sure if youre aware of it but Windows RT is not the only option for tablets aa im running Windows 8 on my core i5 series 7 slate. Metro is also not universally hated. Expand your scope, step outside the fud and youll see that there are many more users accepting of metro and most of which are eager to use it on their x86 devices. Honestly, do some research before you post your nonsense.

From the article:

"Of interest, Microsoft finally released details on the four versions of Windows 8 that will be available: Windows 8, Windows 8 Pro, Windows 8 Enterprise, and Windows 8 RT (the ARM version for tablets and other mobile applications)."

My mistake was not specifying up-front that while there is the possibility of x86/x64 "tablets", they are unlikely to be produced in large numbers, and extremely unlikely to make enough of an impact in the marketplace to affect the thinking here at all.

And yes, I *am* treating ARM tablets as the only choice in tablets, but there's a good reason for that. It's because if you look around the tablet space, no manufacturer has interest in making non-ARM tablets. In fact, I recently have read a number of articles questioning the future of Atom entirely.

If you look at the tradeshows, few OEMs seem to be offering up x86/x64 "tablets",
it looks like they are focused on the ultranotebook concept and adding tablet-like functionality to it. As it is, the only ultranotebook with any meaningful sales is the Apple Macbook Air; what makes you think that a premium x86/x64 product that adds touch and Windows 8 will be a breakthrough product? There is every reason to believe that x86/x64 ultranotebooks will go the same way as the interesting but unpopular "Origami" PC.

The form factors that will likely still be in the "tablet" category and possibly use x84/x64 CPUs are things like the slates and "convertible tablets", neither of which have done very well in the marketplace. People simply are not lining up to buy them.

Furthermore, if history stands, true tablets will initially be re-branded Android tablets, like we are seeing in the WP7 market. Which is going to further decrease the x86/x64 "tablets" that make it to market.

To summarize: yes, at a *technical* level, x86/x64 tablets are possible, and we may even see a few on the market. But do not hold your breath or make your future plans based on their possible existence.

J.Ja

Intel just released their first x86 powered Android phone and without getting into specifics of performance comparisons with graphics/etc to other Android phones, I would say that the fact that they've released an x86 power efficient processor that CAN be compared to an ARM based device means that Intel has made some major advances with mobile x86 computing so I would say that perhaps Atom may not be here for the long term (i haven't heard anything besides what you've said) but Intel will definitely be pushing a credible x86 alternative in the mobile space making x86 Windows 8 tablets more appealing and that OEM's will eventually start to show interest. I do agree that Windows RT will be the dominant Windows 8 OS in the tablet form factor which I find rather disappointing. Of course it is cheaper to manufacture but I think ultimately it holds less appeal than the mobile x86 designs and that the limitations imposed by Windows RT will eventually cause a negative outlook on Windows 8 tablet computing which end up pushing OEM's away. But to say that x86 slates have not been popular thus far isn't exactly a fair criticism because Windows slates have until this point not actually run a touch friendly OS pushing Windows slates to be used when a specific application is made with touch in mind. Now that the primary parts of the Windows OS are touch enabled, x86 slates have much more potential. I'm just pointing out that you can't say the future for x86 mobility is dim just because it's past was. The real strength of Windows 8 is the fact that it is the ONLY major OS to truly merge the past with the future but ARM based devices destroy that advantage. That's not to say that Metro can't stand on it's own in comparison to iOS, (I highly prefer Metro myself) but the desktop gives Windows 8 that "edge" in dual purpose computing. Imagine a Microsoft sales rep in Best Buy doing a demonstration for customers: He grabs an iPad, docks it and uses a wireless keyboard. Then he grabs a business class (I'll assume only business class slates will run x86 which will have the unfortunate result of pushing the prices up to business class as well although the price can be justified in comparison to an iPad), docks it, runs dual screens, a wireless mouse and keyboard, printer, thumbdrive, switches to the desktop to run Quickbooks, switches to Metro to check his e-mail, undocks the slate, moves over to a chair, sits down, uses xbox companion to launch "Ghostbusters" on the 360, hands the iPad over to the customers and says "Now do all of that with the iPad". The effect will be instantaneous. I know because I've done that to my users. Every one of them instantly understands that my slate can do more and when I tell them I paid $1100 for my Slate, they all say "Ouch" but then I tell them the 64GB iPad Wifi is $800. To do everything I just did with the iPad, you'll also need a Windows PC which would probably cost another $500 minimum. Would you save $200 and have just one device? They all say "yes". So, do I agree that Windows RT will be the dominant OS in Best Buy. Yes. Do I think it "should" be the dominant OS at Best Buy? No. I like Metro. I do but I don't think Windows RT should carry the "Windows" brand. Windows 8 x86 should carry the brand only because it contains Metro along with the desktop which is after all what everyone associates with the "Windows" brand.

I remember the nvidia president saying that he hoped Microsoft wouldn't pitch Windows 8 tablets as a replacement for the desktop and it's pretty obvious why he would say that and why ARM favoring OEM's would agree with him...it's because THEIR ARM based devices can't run the traditional desktop at this point. Only Intel/AMD can claim that at this time. It would be interesting if with a service pack or maybe with Windows 9, Microsoft frees up the desktop to ARM development distributed through the Windows Store. There really isn't any reason not too unless the libraries aren't available for ARM yet. And when that happens, it'll be interesting to see how nvidia/arm OEM's respond to that particular idea. Taking that concept a bit further, I wonder if Microsoft and Intel have an "understanding" that desktop based development will NOT be available to ARM devices until a later time to allow Intel to strangle business users into their platform. It's not like developers can just re-compile their .net based apps overnight but it really wouldn't take too long to get them to offer an ARM friendly version if their apps were already built using .net. Conspiracy?

You mention that Intel has developed an x86 Android phone but you seem to ignore the simple fact that there are enough reviews or sales to even begin to assume it's a paradigm shift in the mobile world. Don't get me wrong, Android as a standalone OS seems to be very good, but it simply doesn't have the integration with Windows or OS X to make it a seamless supplemental device to either platform.

Ease of use is probably the primary goal for any developer right now simply because Apple, and now Amazon, have proven that no device can truly stand alone and be fully successful.

In fact, it appears that Android activations have begun falling off as both AT&T and Verizon in the US have reported iPhone sales 50% to 75% higher than all Android devices combined over the last quarter. What we are seeing is a hole opening up which may allow WinRT to become competitive and, if things go somewhat the way they have in the past, probably the dominant or second-place mobile OS behind iOS. Android, like all other versions of linux before it, will become a niche OS.

The thing is, putting a full version of Windows onto a mobile device is gross overkill while the RT version is far more likely to succeed--as long as it has the integration to WinDesktop to make data exchange totally seamless.

I, running the full Windows 8 on my Series 7 Slate right now. This message is being composed on that very device. I assure you, its not overkill. I've been using Windows 8 as my primary OS, this slate as my primary device for months and I can assure you that its not overkill. What you are not understanding is that these x86 Windows 8 Slates are not mere tablets, they are fully functional pc's. They're everything that's packed into the standard static boxes that sit on the floor in the family room of the majority of homes in the World except now you can pick up that PC and take it with you wherever you go. You can dock it with a monitor, multiple monitors in fact, print from it, plug in your thumb drive, use a mouse and keyboard, undock it, walk over to the couch, switch to metro and browse the web. I don't think you're aware of what's going on with Windows 8 and I don't think you're grasping the true potential of Windows 8 x86 slate devices. I develop on this device, use it as part of my consulting and when I'm sitting on the couch, I browse the web, watch movies, play games and chat with friends on this one device that's running a core i5, an x86 cpu, and I'm getting 4.5-5 hours on a cpu that doesn't include the latest power sipping tech from Intel. Really, you shouldn't comment on something unless you actually know what you're talking about.

It's more than a touch-vs-mouse debate. The operating paradigm of a tablet OS is different than that of a desktop OS. Tablets are meant for immediacy and long battery life. Both of these things require that the software work within the constraints -- things like near-zero load time; not having to reboot; *very* little processing in the background; one-app-at-a-time multitasking and data sharing; interaction timeout; interruption by foreground alerts (think phone calls and texts on equipped devices).

Windows 7-style OSes don't and haven't done these things, and it takes more than a new OS release to shift the applications away from the model they currently use to one designed for mobile platforms.

Otherwise, it's just a laptop that you hold like a tablet, with all the baggage of the current crop of hardware. Windows 8 won't (can't) change that. So, Justin's already covered that by not giving up on traditional desktop applications. He's merely focused this article on the tablet / mobile *software* side, regardless of what form factor the hardware comes in.

But Windows 8 isn't 7. There are many improvements.

The GUI has changed, but I would wager (not having access to the source, nor development teams, of course..) that the scheduling, CPU and memory management, and drivers have not.

If there's a shutdown and/or reboot button (that's meant to be used more than a few times a year)... if you can't leave it on and it'll put itself in full standby within 5 minutes... if you can't bring the device back to life in less than 5 seconds... if you can't leave dormant applications running with no perceptible loss of battery life... then it's just a PC in a tablet case.

I really doubt that much has changed in one version. That's why there's RT.

you'd know that that's happened. My series 7 can cold boot in less than 10 seconds, it resumes instantly, it offers the full power of a pc but the casual consumption of a traditional tablet. It serves in every way you'd want it to. Id recommend that you actually try it on spec hardware before you spout the idea that it doesn't do these things.

Apologies for the spelling mistakes!

Won't be explained to the end user, and they will go to best buy and buy a windows tablet expecting it to run their windows programs and be disappointed. Then you will have a situation similar to the Linux netbooks. Consumers are idiots but the retailers don't make it clear in their advertising which models can do what.

This is the kind of thing that is going to sink Windows 8 RT. People will be howling about how they bought a "Windows 8" devices and couldn't run "Windows" applications, and who can blame them? Microsoft has NEVER broken backwards compatibility quite like this. Event he relatively minor issues with back compat on Vista killed it in the marketplace.

J.Ja

I mean sure, its a different processor architecture, so maybe some low level system programs won't work anymore. Most programs either run on a framework, or use the Windows API. Both can be modified to make X86/ARM function with the same public interface and keep backwards compatibility.

It's just that it could take a while for those libraries to be updated and then again, Microsoft may just wipe it's hands of compatibility and say "Windows RT is exclusively a touch OS." It could be argued that all of the old API's and frameworks were meant primarily for non-touch usage, have no place on an exclusively touch OS and if Windows RT is a developer target for a specific app, they should port to Metro. How well that will be received remains to be seen.

In other words, Windows as a desktop platform has already failed on tablet-like devices for over a decade now--it's simply not set up for true touch capability even though the touch overlay is installed already. The reason it has failed so far is that desktop Windows is still too mouse & keyboard reliant and the users aren't letting that paradigm change. Apple, by dumping the mouse & keyboard as the primary UI, has forced developers to create touch-centric apps. Microsoft's waffling (Wembling?) with trying to accommodate both sides has almost guaranteed that the mouse & keyboard side will remain dominant. Only Win8RT is forcing the touch development and as we can see from the author of this article even there the process is more difficult than it should be.

Why make the difference? WinRT can force the shift; WinDesktop cannot and will not at least for a couple more years.

Not many consumers paying 3 to 5 thousand dollars for a tablet computer.

But your determined to blame Windows for that....

Without touch-centric software a touch OS is virtually useless. Since Microsoft merely put a touch-capable skin over the old mouse UI, developers had no reason to support tablets as a stand-alone device and so never developed any touch-centric software. For the last eleven years, the only touch-capable software that made it into the enterprise was that specifically commissioned for a specific corporation for a specific task. Even now, there are no touch-centric apps for Windows on the open market that I know of.

But still, you're sitting here quoting the past. Of course there were no common touch apps as previous windows tablets targeted the enterprise and now Win8 Metro, not just RT, is targeting th consumer space with a common platform for touch and there are apps available for this beta OS already and they're great!

I stated that there were no touch-centric apps for Windows desktop on the open market. You now claim that there are. Please tell me which ones they are and perhaps link me to a list of them.

People want a tablet that runs Windows applications, but they want this without considering the practical limitations. Ideally, it's a great idea. But, the software is just not written for this form of interaction. So at best, you emulate a pointer with a touchscreen, and end up making compromises on touch resolution, right-click dependences, screen size vs. battery life, weight vs. horsepower, etc.

Plus, as I mentioned in another thread, the kernel was designed to accommodate tasks running 24x7 with no practical constraints on what they should be doing when.

Quick poll: If you write applications software, have you ever checked battery state or network connection profiles before arbitrarily assuming it's a good time to look for updates, or send/receive data, etc.? If you see a WiFi and LAN connection available, do you prioritize, or just let the routing table figure it out?

MS, being the outfit with access to hardware vendors and the software engineers that write the APIs, could have started "RT" a long time ago. They kind-of did with the pen/tablet releases of the OS. All you got is Windows with pen drivers and handwriting recognition APIs that were tacked on to keyboard input methods. As Vulpine said, they tried to do it without cutting ties to the desktop app market, thus it was a platform that really excelled at nothing.

And here they are again, basically making the same mistake with Win8 (Desktop Edition). The market will fracture a little, and maybe things will be a bit better this time around because people are getting used to touch interfaces and starting to take them seriously. (The number of "the iPad is a toy!" comments is finally starting to dwindle.) RT is really their only shot at cutting into this space, but frustratingly, they still refuse to separate from the Windows brand, leading to the potential confusion that started this thread, and the discontent of users fed up with PCs.

While it's true that they forced a change on their tablet device, they did not force their developers to change. It was up to them to make the choice to change if they wanted software sales on mobile devices.

Apple still makes an OS that functions like a traditional desktop UI for their desktop and laptop machines, and they've continued to make improvements to it. They didn't force the people using those machines to a tile-based interface. Beginning with their latest OS, they've begun to integrate mobile and desktop apps. onto the same platform, for desktop and laptop computers. They did this by layering the interface, not replacing it. They still have a desktop interface, but iOS apps. running on OS X run on an emulator, and they "cohabitate" with traditional desktop windows. The person using it doesn't have to make a choice, "Do I want to run a mobile app. in this interface, or a desktop app. in this other interface?" They both run in the same apparent UI environment. So they aren't deprecating the desktop UI the way MS is. MS is again trying to create "unity" by nudging everyone over to the same platform. Apple isn't, or is at least taking a more gradual approach to that.

Of course, when I look at a lot of the users out there who buy something for home use, a lot of the times they'll get their device home and use what comes with it but again, going back to the linux netbook example, those didn't sell too well and that incompatiblity I'm sure was the primary reason. Microsoft I think should have done more with the Windows brand to drive home the difference unless they're planning on reducing that difference in the future. I have this hope that once the libraries for desktop development are polished, that the Windows Store will open up desktop development even if the Windows Store is the only deployment avenue. Perhaps in Windows 9 this will happen and while that won't fix the situation and allow the user to install their copy of Office XP, maybe it'll ease the pain a bit when updated version's of their desktop software are available on the Store.

People will have it in their heads that Windows tablets suck. Enough returns to the big box stores and they will stop selling them.

They were probably better off holding ARM back but it may have been the only way to push x86 development further into the mobile space. What I mean is, Intel may have just been content to push their typical Atom crap rather than actually improve the performance of the tech while also increasing battery life. Either way, I see ARM tablets as disappointing no matter what. I mean, the whole idea behind Windows 8 is that it's a "no compromise" operating system yet the fundamentals behind the Windows RT platform is a compromise...it's an outright abandonment of legacy computing but still, true Windows 8 slate's will be available and hopefully rise to the forefront. Perhaps if there are some restrictions on the "display" of the Windows devices in 3rd party stores, Microsoft could arrange that Windows RT devices sit side by side with Windows 8 slates. Assuming Windows RT devices will be cheaper and Windows 8 slates more expensive, that may reinforce the customer perception of value, set expectations and probably at the very least, urge them to ask the question "why the price difference?"

Does the iPod, iPhone, or iPad (iOS devices) run OSX applications? Does OSX run Mac OS applications? I believe the answer is no to both questions; yet the sales numbers show that was not much of a concern. Historically the case is not the same amongst Windows/PC consumers, e.g. XP Mode in some Windows 7 versions.
Apple users are happy to have a device that does what they want it to, and if there is compatibility amongst the latest versions of the various devices, they are happy with that. Hopefully the MS marketing team will "educate" the consumer in a similar way, though it will be a tough sell, both because of Windows compatibility history and naming convention. Windows Phone marketing has tried this, though I can't be a judge it's effectiveness.

Before you can say Windows based tablets suck, maybe actually wait util they come out with Windows 8? [That's like saying the 2014 Honda Civic will suck. Is it out yet?]

Why would anyone want to develop a 99 cent application for an Apple gadget instead of charging $20 for a Windows application. [On top of that, you have Apple's draconian rules to abide by including selling the app for 99 cents but actually getting 69 cents (and if you refund it's not just the 69 cents but also the remaining 30 cents that Apple kept), not using cross-compilers and who knows whatever else.]

... I said that people won't adopt them, because the tablets that will be produced will lack what consumers want (backwards compatibility) and enterprises want (backwards compatibility and Active Directory integration)... and the various mobile form factors that will be available in x86/x64 will be too pricey (which is what we're seeing on the market with the slates and ultrabooks... all high end stuff that no one is buying in large amounts, and when they do it competes with the Mac Air).

J.Ja

Id argue against the price aspect as the lowest series 7 is around 1150. A 64GB iPad is 700 and a decent laptop/desktop for normal usage can run you about 650. A single x86 series 7 performs all functions of both in one device for 200 less. It only costs more if you compare to a single device omitting win8's greatest advantage.

Right now, all of the upcoming devices from PC OEMs with touch capability (slates, convertibles, etc.) are NOT in the same price class as the iPad or existing tablets, they are all on the high end of the market. And the lower priced stuff is going to be re-purposed ARM stuff, like the recently announced B&N Nook deal.

J.Ja

They will not on average exceed the price of the current Series 7 slates. The x86 devices will primarily be considered the more expensive class of win8 tablets. You also cant compare them to the common traditional android tablets which outside of the kindle and nook are not doing well and more often than not are being returned. The only real competitor in the non ereaderesque space is the iPad and not all iPads are 500. Even at a couple hundred more, the value of a Win8 slate exceeds that of an iPad.

Ease of use is the final arbiter in this case. Right now even web apps are mouse-centric, not touch. So even if you only used web apps on that x86 tablet PC you're still forced to attach unnecessary hardware or struggle to make it work in a touch fashion. Without the apps, x86 Windows is almost a guaranteed failure on a touch envirionment.

So you could finger the touch pad while holding up the device. With of course a quick button to disable it for when you are just reading a book or something.

I'll admit, I use a touch pad on my iMac--a multi-touch pad--but it's still not as quick, intuitive or as accurate as it would be if I could simply touch the screen where I want and have the pointer automatically there and reading a click. I've been using an iPad for over 2 years now and the difference is very obvious. I'd much rather have the capability of using my iPad as the screen's pointer system but going multi-display as I have would make doing so more difficult. Obviously the iPad would have to mirror the screen you're using at the time. Same holds true for any other tablet/desktop interface.

I'd take the compromise if the tablet could function like a laptop.

Interestingly enough, Windows 9x had no trouble scaling GUI elements to be big enough for a fat fingered user to use as a touch screen, but XP, Vista and 7 progressively support less and less dynamic resizing primarily caused by the use of static graphics to skin the old elements.

... with a simple pinch motion on the touchpad or an option-scroll/-drag with a mouse.

Personally, I think a back-mounted touch surface would be counter-intuitive, though I will admit to seeing Microsoft play with that concept just a few years ago.

But as you said, there are no touch centric apps. So a touch pad might be necessary as a middle time solution until some touch programs are actually built.

Its not new...

What touch-centric software will you use on an x86 Windows8 tablet?

What defines a touch-centric software?