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?

Radio buttons need to be big enough to hit accurately. Tracking has to be precise and smooth. Touches would have to both target the pointer and act as single-click while touch-and-hold truly does allow dragging. But overall it has to be intuitive. I've seen so many Windows apps fail on trying to use touch-screen desktops because they don't recognize a two-finger touch as a right-click. I've seen too many apps fail because they lose track of the location of the touch when it accidentally slips out of the window while for whatever reason they don't do so when dragging the mouse pointer.

When you can use an app 100% without wanting to connect a mouse because 'it is easier', then it's a touch-centric app.

Big buttons
No drag and drop(preferably)
Right click enabled (or not required at all)
Intuitive (tricky, this is a matter of opinion)
And pretty much the "Windows" concept doesn't work, only 1 active application at a time (full screen applications)

Am I correct?

I never said the "windows" concept doesn't work, only that no software on any desktop OS at this time is truly touch-specific. Metro is a step in the right direction but to me is childish in execution while OS X Lion (and above) are trying to make it more intuitive (yet they still haven't made a touch-sensitive display for the desktop.) You have to consider the look and "feel" of the app as to whether it is touch-centric or not. Windows as yet doesn't offer that 'feel' and no apps available so far come close to offering it.

Edited.

NWallette,

You're right. Although I wouldn't say that what I said was too bad but it was wrong. It was just very revealing...the things he was saying and how "off" he was on his critique when he mentioned the products he used.

nt

Microsoft is trying desperately to relegate the "legacy desktop" to just that... legacy. They're throwing in the towel on it, because of things like the security issues. The gave up trying to restrict permissions to deal with security, and RT's approach of "if it's not on a narrow list, it ain't happening" seems to do a better job than continuously trying to figure out how to tighten Win32 API without breaking existing apps.

So no, Microsoft has ZERO intentions of letting folks port "legacy desktop" applications to Windows 8 or Windows 9 on ARM, it's not happening, and you should NOT hold out hope for it. Instead, Microsoft is going to go out of their way to kill the "legacy desktop" and relegate it for stuff like CAD/CAM, software development, and similar niche/specialty tasks.

If you want to know why they think they can get away with this, the answer is the telemetry data that they get from the "Customer Experience Improvement Program", they have terabyte after terabyte of data showing EXACTLY how people use Windows, and they've learned that folks who use it as designed, folks like us (it: tiling windows, lots of multitasking, etc.) are a small minority, and we aren't going to be doing those things on anything less than a full-blown laptop anyways.

J.Ja

MS should know better that its us IT people that decide what OS will be on the users machine. Cut the legacy tie and its far easier to commit to a new, non Microsoft dependent system.

People are using their macs from home, their non windows phones on the go and their ipad from the coffee shop. We only control what we purchase and as our users expand our support to other os's, we have less arguments to hold on to windows. I'm not saying we have none but the future has never been less certain for MS.

The *only* place I use windows is at work. If we want a mac, we have to bring our own. I have several macs and iphones at home for our family and my work from home. OSX and iOS just feels right. A mac comes already equipped with quite a bit of software that people want and in a very nice package... and it is UNIX based which increases my confidence level in the product. Even the iphone is based on UNIX at the lowest level.

You IT people are required to make things work the way the company officers want it to work. IT does not control the enterprise, the enterprise controls IT--and right now they hate IT because it costs the enterprise more money than any other single division. You IT people are losing control of that OS decision-making process with the onset of BYOD. iOS is already in the majority of corporations. OS X is slowly invading those corporations as a result. IT is being forced to accommodate--or leave.

If you ask me, you'd best become flexible in your OS education or you may have dark days ahead of you.

When you give the execs the price of the upgrades, certain paths become clear. If Microsoft is outright dumping legacy programs, then there is little reason to remain with Microsoft. The cost savings with licensing alone would be significant.

This has been proven for 30 years now as Apple has more than once proven that--all else being equal--Apple's computers and OS can save money over Windows PCs. The only reason Windows has retained the enterprise market is because the cost of change is higher--for a short time. Now that Apple products are making their way into the enterprise through BYOD, the enterprise is seeing a chance to avoid the cost of that change.

I'm by no means saying that Windows won't still have a place in the enterprise but rather saying that both platforms can work side by side far more seamlessly than the IT departments ever imagined simply because they were so Windows-indoctrinated. Either way you go, you're still going to have to license the OSes one way or another but what you're running into now is something like the Y2K debacle where everyone panicked and replaced perfectly functional machines because of little more than a fear that Y2K would upset all their software. Now, Microsoft is attempting to force those hold-outs into their newest and do so in a way that at least appears to offer the same kind of integration as Apple has with its i-devices.

So exactly what is the price of the upgrades? When does the new start demonstrating a superior ROI over the old? Again I say that the old hide-bound IT is losing their control over the environment and becoming what they should have been all along, environment support.

So I shall try again, I am simply saying that with MS dropping backwards compatibility, there is little reason for any company that needs to upgrade, to continue to follow Microsoft, the alternatives exist, might as well investigate them. Microsoft is throwing out their 1 strong playing card (legacy support), but the rest of their hand is very weak compared to Apple and Linux. The only other strong card MS might have is graphics, but we don't know if that will continue with WinRT.

With that, you're right, Microsoft is going to face some real competition now that they're having to sacrifice their stranglehold on the enterprise. As such, they need to make their customers want to adopt Windows over another OS where before they only had to ensure compatibility. What with Apple more than once proving long-term savings, this means that both the new Windows and the OEMs have to offer similar savings if they want to stay in those businesses.

Last I checked, there was still a desktop in Windows 8.

And does not support the win32 API's.

Windows 8 X86 apparently has some increased security that will also break some applications, but I don't have any proof of this. I do know our application that our shop develops does not work at all on Windows 8 because MDAC support was forcibly removed.

Would you consider Windows 7 to break backwards compatibility? If not, then you should also say that Windows 8 does not break backwards compatibility as it doesn't break a greater number of Windows 7 compatible applications than Windows 7 did XP and so on and so on.

no text

And they all opted not to go Mac. The eco system from MS is still superior for a number of reasons from the IT perspective and by extension, the business perspective. There is a place for Mac but its niche primarily. That's just the way it is and as IT has the responsibility of accommodating minority OS's, it is not subject to serving the agenda of pushing Mac into the enterprise no matter who cries about it. Our primary responsibility is to the business, to its continuing function and security. For those responsibilities, Windows as the common platform holds much more value and consistency while we remain open to accommodating our users personal devices where possible.

Sorry, couldn't help it.

"The Competition" is more than compatibility, it's also management. Although the BYOD trend is making an industry of multi-platform management, there's still no equivalent of AD and GPOs for PC-equivalents.

OS X licensing leaves a lot to be desired in an enterprise. It may come with the hardware, but every IT shop I've ever set foot in likes to buy hardware (separately, and discounted), and apply licenses from a pool as they see fit. Neither the Apple hardware nor software models work this way, and the official hardware lineup (which is all you get to choose from) isn't quite granular enough to best fit need with machine. (Nor is it for me at home -- reason #1 for Hackintoshing.)

With weak AD integration, and no decent native client management tools (that I know of?), it's also a tough sell for policy compliance. Windows may be typically less secure, but you can say you follow industry best practices, so it still looks better than saying you have a bunch of Macs on the loose.

BYOD is working because those to whom you can't say no are demanding it, not because the dude in AP wants one. If those same folks, in numbers, begin showing up with a Macbook Pro, paid for by the CFO himself, it'll go on the network, and that's the end of that. Until then, we'll probably keep lapping up whatever Windows flavor comes our way (as IT in general.)

Now if only MS could manage a decent patch-management service, or successfully extend GPOs to third-party client software.

Even though the desktop is primarily associated with win32, there are ways of exposing api's, etc in a controlled fashion to 3rd party applications. If development for the desktop was exposed to ARM via .net, the exposed methods could be as tightly controlled as Microsoft would want them to be. I agree that Microsoft wants to move on but I don't see not exposing the desktop to ARM to be solely based on security reasons. Methods can be carefully exposed to ARM developement.

I rather see this situation to be that MS has decided that the desktop is as perfect as they can make it so now they'll focus their attention elsewhere. Honestly, what improvements do you think can be made to the desktop architecture vs underlying changes to the OS itself? I know that legacy in computing traditionally means obsolete or out of date but it could be that in the MS vision, as they often have their own vocabulary, it takes on a very specific meaning...traditional and that meaning makes additional sense when associated with the massive changes coming with Windows 8 and Metro which are completely new when compared to traditional, or legacy, Windows development.

Besides, if there's enough demand for it, MS can always expose the desktop. In its basic sense, were only talking about the look and interaction with the software and not necessarily the entire traditional api's that are associated with it. A desktop app can be just as constrained as a Metro app...its just presentation.

And MS could just work to fix the vulnerabilities. Applications really only care about the public interface, what happens behind the scenes is irrelevant. This is how programs such as Wine work, by providing the API the application expects.

If MS was really serious about security, they'd make their own version of Wine, and update it to support more MS software and have it available on windows RT.
Have this emulation program control exactly which programs run, and maybe even sandbox them. Problem solved.

It's time Microsoft flat eliminated them. The only way they can do that without litigation is to completely re-write the OS without those holes that even the AV applications use to perform their tasks. Microsoft tried to close those holes once--only to be forced to re-open them because the AV vendors cried foul. Strangely, they didn't cry foul when Apple switched from OS 9 to OS X despite the fact that Apple flat shut out all existing access points.

No, the only way to 'fix' the problem is to flat eliminate it--not patch it under so many layers of bandages that the code itself becomes unwieldy and bloated. When a patch has to be put into Win7 to further smother a Win'95 vulnerability, you know they've gone too far.

But I don't see any reason why win32 API's can't be sandboxed and maintained, or even provided as an (free) optional compatibility pack download. Let those than need the bloat, have the bloat.

Not hard to do, but will Microsoft do it?

what world are you from?

Comments like this are what makes so many people hate Apple users.

Yes, Apple is most definitely changing the world; it has been for the last 30 years. That doesn't mean that Windows is in any way inferior in function even though I personally hated all the hoops it made you jump through simply to make something work. Microsoft has learned that many of Apple's methods actually make sense; it's one reason why Win8RT is so 'stripped' compared to desktop Windows 8. Even the desktop has been showing changes that have made it somewhat easier to use (though a drastic change from it's former best, XP) but has also made it more confusing for the long-time Windows user. Even now, two versions past Vista, most Windows users are forcing the desktop to revert to XP appearances and style rather than accommodating the changes at face value. Don't blame the OS for the users' difficulties.

Stop sniffing glue or slurping rubbing alcohol or whatever.
But we do know that OS X is inferior. DOS is the best.
[BTW, if OS X was so superior, why does Windows users outnumber Mac users 12 to 1?]

Why didn???t you right an article titled more so about the pitfalls instead of suggesting iPad as the answer?

This has nothing to do with iPad. iPad development is not a similar experience in anyway (and with its own pitfalls! truth be told).

I personal do not like developing in Objective-C and would personal rather go with Android if that was an option, but that???s not the case.

The articles here tend to be too overly skewed and opinionated.

What about .net development? It's a lot more productive and confortable than Objective-C.

I know the article is just an opinion .... however all the facts should be presented. However, as a reader I guess my responsibility is to be careful as to what I read. Thanks yloops for your insight.

Never seen anyone be so rude over what seems to be a trivial error or maybe I'm not "perfect".

and making the OS (and vendor lock-in) irrelevant

For some reason, corporation are always very slow moving, so HTML5 might be a bit of time yet.

... because it does the same things as Adobe Flash--without the associated vulnerabilities.

Was there a TR blog post saying this?

Apparently Apple won since Adobe is no longer offering a mobile version of Flash; they simply couldn't get it to work smoothly on mobile processors.

Maybe if flash was still owned by Macromedia....

Just kidding...

And I'm not kidding.

Quite frankly, I don't know if HTML5 is going to be any better there. Dynamic graphics and animation are only going to run so fast on limited hardware.

I would have like to have seen Justin delve into iPad (iOS) development before declaring that the direction to go. I hope that while he explores that, he will also look into cross-device development between OSX and iOS; I for one would like to know how it compares with his MS experiences.

Not being able to "join active directory domains" was stated as being a major blow to MS chances with Win8RT, though is the iPad going to require any less work in updating the enterprise to allow it to work in that environment?

To Justin's credit, he does remind us of his advice for data-driven apps, which in of itself is not device specific.

As I mentioned in another comment, I believe MS and more specifically Windows is stuck in a historical rut of having to be backwards compatible; to such an extent that it is not only expected, but required. The Metro Interface, I believe is MS trying to move forward and still meet compatibility. All that said, the desktop experience is indeed hurting Win8 now, and will have to be vastly improved in order to sell Metro as truely cross-device solution, especially for enterprise applications.

C or Java or some form of Visual Basic, but not just Windows dependent like now. I need this program bad and will eventually have to move it along or loose it. That would be a pure pure shame.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGK9v6wQ_3k Jamming Video like nobody else with SSDS

Really?
The tools and the platform are more important than something of value you might create for users?
You can't even bring yourself to say that you'll "get an Apple machine"? As a developer and journalist I expect better of you - be a bigger man.

By the way, if you do, your web development toolkit will expand exponentially beyond your current (presumably) Windows-only setup. You can start exploring the true riches of the JS, Ruby and Python eco-systems.

Drop the religion.

Justin,
Can you clarify the devices being controlled through AD part? The post says it is possible - http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2012/04/19/managing-quot-byo-quot-pcs-in-the-enterprise-including-woa.aspx?

Dude, I'm holding a Samsung tablet with Intel i5 processor, and it's running all my legacy apps, even an ERP app. Sooo... where do you get your info from?

Hi Justin!
I appreciate your point. But seems you was wrong about possibility of Windows 8 tablets to joint to domain in Active Directory. What do you say if you read preview about Windows 8 now? Some quotation from there i have just copied to let you read about it:

"Windows Server 8 and Active Directory Domain Services allow remote users to
more securely and seamlessly access resources inside of a corporate network through
DirectAccess, without having to launch a separate connection, such as a virtual private
network (VPN), to the corporate network."

This article is wrong on so many levels.
A. iPads don't join your domain either!
B. As a touch OS Windows 8 is further ahead IMHO - Live tiles, interop between apps, etc.
C. You can use existing programming skills such as C#, XAML, etc.
D. As others have said, only the ARM tablets need the new apps

As usual, another half baked article with misleading info. Windows 8 RT is missing Active Directory so go with IPAD? Do we know how many serious business tablets will be running ARM? my understanding of ARM products is that they are aimed at the consumer market. Running Win 8 Metro apps without touch? Why would you do that, when that's what it's intended to be used with, it's like complaining that Windows 7 is awkward without a mouse, so it's bad. Developers hated Windows when the DOS world was king, but guess what, everybody went to Windows anyway. If Metro Apps are so bad, adjustments will be made to accommodate users.
So we should develop apps for an IPAD which is barely compatible with anything! Really strange logic.

????????????win7???win8??????????????????????????????