So, a rudimentary jailbreak for Windows RT made its way onto the web these past few days. Open source applications were ported right away, and it was confirmed that Windows RT is the full Windows – it’s exactly the same as regular Windows, except that it runs on ARM. Microsoft responded to the jailbreak as well.
First – but we already knew that – there is no technical reason preventing desktop applications from running. There are no inherent limitations in Windows RT compared to Windows 8. All that’s standing between you and freedom on Windows RT’s desktop is an artificial limitation by Microsoft.
Microsoft’s somewhat official reason is that it can’t create an emulation layer fast enough to run code compiled for x86, and they are probably right. The underlying argument here is that Microsoft wants to shield users from downloading software only to find that it doesn’t run because it’s x86. However, there’s an obvious flaw here.
You see, there’s no difference between the application not running because Microsoft prevents it, and it not running because it’s x86. In both scenarios, it won’t run. The user is frustrates. If Windows RT’s desktop mode was open, lots of developers would surely recompile/port their applications, making Microsoft’s concern far less of an issue.
Security is another major concern, and here Microsoft has a point. A Windows that can’t run x86 code, but only Metro applications, is a safe Windows. Opening up Windows RT would make it vulnerable to newly written ARM malware.
All in all, Microsoft will not allow easy jailbreaks to exist, let alone provide an official method to do so. The reason is simple, and has nothing to do with the above: market segmentation.
Windows RT is supposed to be for cheaper tablets, while Windows 8 is for more expensive tablets with laptop-like performance. If popular desktop software got ported to Windows RT, Windows 8 tablets would lose their major unique selling point. A lot of Surface buyers who want a Surface Pro now, would opt for a Surface RT instead.
As such, I expect Microsoft will do whatever it can to prevent jailbreaks – and it will certainly not provide an official method. Microsoft’s statement reflect this.
The scenario outlined is not a security vulnerability and does not pose a threat to Windows RT users. The mechanism described is not something the average user could, or reasonably would, leverage, as it requires local access to a system, local administration rights and a debugger in order to work. In addition, the Windows Store is the only supported method for customers to install applications for Windows RT. There are mechanisms in place to scan for security threats and help ensure apps from the Store are legitimate and can be acquired and used with confidence.We applaud the ingenuity of the folks who worked this out and the hard work they did to document it. We’ll not guarantee these approaches will be there in future releases.
So, the company is indicating the issue will be ‘fixed’, and gives zero hints about their policy ever changing. In other words, don’t rely on hacks like this – if you need real Windows instead of My First Windowsâ„¢, you’ll have to go x86.
A very nicely balanced response from Microsoft, nice to see. Not a huge surprise though, this really doesn’t hurt them in any way, while giving them some nice press in the hardcore tech geek circles.
“Microsoft’s somewhat official reason is that it can’t create an emulation layer fast enough to run code compiled for x86, and they are probably right.”
I wouldn’t say they are probably right, ARM has done great job keep power usage down, but with that they sacrifice performance. You take even quad core ARM based cpu right now, it would be much slower then x86 based. A recent interview with rep from ARM maker, they he said “Intel can’t match us in power consumption” but stopped short of fact they can’t match Intel in performance. Although only thing that happened from that was 2 months later Intel put out an new Atom cpu that was in power range of most ARM parts, and has little better performance.
Anandtech has been really busy trying to messure and compare:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6422/samsung-chromebook-xe303-review-…
The latest ARM-chip beats the previous Intel Atom chip.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6529/busting-the-x86-power-myth-indep…
The latest Intel-chip beats the older NVIDIA Tegra 3.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6536/arm-vs-x86-the-real-showdown/14
It is starting to look like a proper race now.
There’are people who can create fast x86 emulator (and some are already doing that),
Microsoft just need to get out of their way.
Qemu is more-or-less the fastest one, but it still ain’t fast. You possibly think of virtualization, which is not the same thing.
No. I’m talking about process-level emulator, not the OS.
There is zero sense in full-system emulator. Full win32 is here already.
Anyway, Elbrus Technologies for example, aims for 80% emulation effeciency, but they’re targeting enterprise market.
So, basically you want Wine with machine-code translation. Too bad that it won’t happen without Microsoft’s help, as even Wine is still riddled with bugs after all these years.
Snake-oil.
WereCatf,
“So, basically you want Wine with machine-code translation. Too bad that it won’t happen without Microsoft’s help, as even Wine is still riddled with bugs after all these years.”
This kind of project seems right up my alley in terms of my interests and abilities. I think it could be done without the need for “wine” at all as long as the ARM opcodes could implement the same calling conventions which exist on x86.
Most code doesn’t self modify, and because of that it is possible to recompile the opcodes from one architecture to another architecture, which isn’t far off from what qemu does. Inefficiencies arise because different architectures don’t have 1 to 1 correspondence between opcodes, producing overhead. However if this were combined with a good code optimiser (like re-purposing the one in gcc or better yet icc), then you might even end up with emulation that can perform better than the original.
Anyone care to offer me a grant? Since I sure wouldn’t have time to work on it unless I could drop my ordinary work and pay a babysitter.
I think you mean most simple applications don’t self-modify. Most multimedia-related applications do make use of heavy optimizations where straight-up static translation doesn’t work. On a similar note, straight-up translation wouldn’t work for 64-bit applications at all.
But sure, I would love to see you prove me wrong, it’d be a very nice tool in the toolbox! Go ahead and explain more in detail of how you’d actually implement such a thing if you feel like it, as off-topic as it may be.
WereCatf,
“I think you mean most simple applications don’t self-modify. Most multimedia-related applications do make use of heavy optimizations where straight-up static translation doesn’t work.”
I don’t really know what you are referring to here? Most games/multimedia apps would use SSE and the like, but they are still static as far as I know. Skype uses dynamic code extensively to obscure itself even to the point of incurring significant overhead during normal use, which is ridiculous. However that’s an exception and not the norm. I’d be surprised to see many cases where the code in memory is not a mirror image of the executable/dlls.
“On a similar note, straight-up translation wouldn’t work for 64-bit applications at all.”
Why not? Are you talking about handling 64bit calculations? Can’t ARM platforms handle uint64_t today just like 32bit x86 can? Aren’t ints usually 32bit even on x86-64? It’s mainly in the case of longs that 64bit arithmatic needs to be split up into multiple 32bit operations.
An observation is that 64bit longs are often used to store values that would fit in 32bits anyways, so we don’t always need to touch the high bytes anyways. Take a look at 64bit pointers, they’ll never point beyond 4GB on a 32bit ARM, so there’s no need to handle it. The 32bit translated code would only need to detect overflow, and only then would it have to handle a 64bit variable and compile a 64bit code path.
“But sure, I would love to see you prove me wrong, it’d be a very nice tool in the toolbox! Go ahead and explain more in detail of how you’d actually implement such a thing if you feel like it, as off-topic as it may be.”
That’s kind of a vague request.
At a high level, every x86 code segment would have a corresponding ARM recompiled one that’s generated either on the fly or maybe up front. In principal it’s probably not much different from Java’s JIT compiler w/bytecode, though x86 is obviously much less structured.
Having used decompilers (yay turbo debugger!), code alignment is tricky to get right – dumping code with the wrong offset produces garbage. But since we are actually running the code, we don’t have to guess. Dynamic modifications to code pages would trigger faults such that we could invalidate/recompile the corresponding ARM translated code, however I really think we’re talking about an edge case there. The ARM code could be cached between executions to avoid constant recompilation.
In order to save a lot of work on the ARM compiler/optimizer I would try to hook into GCC’s optimizer directly or if I feel particularly hacky maybe even convert the x86 opcodes into C code and call the compiler that way.
Ideally the end result would be ARM code that would be very close to what we would have had if the original source were compiled for ARM instead of x86.
It is safe to assume that code in question is already optimized.
So it should be enough to just move ARM instructions (according to target CPU issue possibilities) up to nearest branch entry point.
Modern OoO ARMs will do the rest for you.
viton,
“It is safe to assume that code in question is already optimized.”
It’s optimized for x86, not necessarily for ARM.
“So it should be enough to just move ARM instructions (according to target CPU issue possibilities) up to nearest branch entry point. Modern OoO ARMs will do the rest for you.”
If the instruction sets were 1:1 then the translation would be trivial. But the trouble is that x86 flags & registers are very unique to that architecture. Also ARM has conditional instructions, the optimal code path could be very dissimilar to x86’s which needs alot more jumps. Even different processors in the x86 family can have different optimal code paths.
Maybe a direct translation is good enough for some applications, but it would be like compiling a binary with no optimization for the target processor.
It hardly does matter for quick and dirty Jit translator.
Translation overhead is worse than small inefficiencies in code.
That is not exposed to C or any language above asm.
Check some executables. Usually only basic flags are used.
Do not confuse modern OoO ARMs with old in-order ones.
Conditional execution is actually bad for OoO engine, as it is adding unwanted dependency between instructions. I heard some rumors that cortex-A9 replaces CE with branches internally.
You don’t get it. Nobody cares about such a small inefficiencies.
And It has already been done. There is an app that does static binary translation of Windows games for Android. (Winulator)
viton,
“It hardly does matter for quick and dirty Jit translator. Translation overhead is worse than small inefficiencies in code.”
I’m not sure if it was clear before, so I’ll make it explicit now, the goal from the outset would be low overhead execution of modern x86 software on ARM (with the same API on each, not a reimplementation like wine). I’m convinced this is possible, but it would require optimization for the target platform.
“That is not exposed to C or any language above asm.
Check some executables. Usually only basic flags are used.”
Yea but the x86 has some funny behavior some times where some instructions set the flags while others do not and even some undefined behaviors like with the bittest opcodes and so the compilers for these instructions have to implement different opcodes to handle things than on ARM processors. I’m sure a thorough analysis would reveal instruction level incompatibilities that I’m hard pressed to come up with on the spot. I expect they’d all be solvable, but a target optimizer would have to be part of the design.
“Do not confuse modern OoO ARMs with old in-order ones.”
I don’t think I am, but even on x86 the OOO doesn’t work miracles, branch misses are very costly and if we can optimize the code to avoid jumps on ARM then we’ll avoid the penalty.
“Conditional execution is actually bad for OoO engine, as it is adding unwanted dependency between instructions”
I think it depends, OOO obviously works best with sets of instructions having no dependencies, which was actually very common on x86 due to the limited number of registers getting reused for independent calculations. x86 designers use OOO+register renaming to get more work done using such few registers. On ARM, there are many more registers such that there is no need to “time share” registers, so OOO is inherently going to work differently there.
I’m not willing to make a conclusion here about performance characteristics without having performed some actual benchmarks.
“You don’t get it. Nobody cares about such a small inefficiencies.”
People in this thread complained about it already. And even if they hadn’t ARM devices in particular have much more stringent power requirements than the typical x86 computer.
Qemu already does what your talking about, yet it suffers from the opcode replication problems I’m referring to because it lacks a target optimizer and might need multiple instructions to replicate x86 instruction semantics on ARM. And beyond that, directly translated x86 code can’t possibly make good use of ARM’s registers. Do you think ARM would have them if they were not important?
This next link has the same goal, and identifies some of the same code conversion pitfalls. They’re thinking of using LLVM’s optimizer instead of GCC’s.
http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-devel/2011-April/089638.html
“There is an app that does static binary translation of Windows games for Android. (Winulator)”
Ah, that’s a decent example, good tip! The website has no information about how it works though, and doesn’t even show any benchmarks. The FAQ just talks about running games from the 90’s so it’s efficiency is unknown, but yes there are similar projects to be found.
Edited 2013-01-11 05:47 UTC
You’re doing over-engineering here. Branch elimination could be helpful, but it will work fine without it.
ARM need more registers to implement load-op and op-in-memory x86 instructions. 16 registers is not much.
there is no need to “time share” registers, so OOO is inherently going to work differently there.
ARM OoO is much more limited, but it has 40 rename registers (on cortex-A9)
Qemu already does what your talking about.
Qemu is a full-system emulator.
x86 on WinRT should not mess with MMU pages.
The only I see here is a lack of understating of ARM arch and binary translation.
viton,
“You’re doing over-engineering here. Branch elimination could be helpful, but it will work fine without it.”
That’s because your aiming for lower branches than I am.
“ARM need more registers to implement load-op and op-in-memory x86 instructions. 16 registers is not much.”
What your talking about isn’t going to run as well as something optimized to use the ARM’s registers natively. The x86 register limitation is a well documented bottleneck even on x86 itself where intel and amd have spent billions on making it perform well. It perplexes me why you think an ARM processor could run x86 code as well as intel can.
“Qemu is a full-system emulator. x86 on WinRT should not mess with MMU pages.”
Yes, qemu manages the MMU, but even when everything is loaded into memory and running will have to incur overhead as a results of implementing x86 semantics & registers on a foreign architecture.
“The only I see here is a lack of understating of ARM arch and binary translation.”
So everyone else is wrong, enlightening that.
The goal, to my understanding, is to execute legacy programs with competitive performance, not a Guinness records for the sake of it.
I didn’t made such a performance claims. I’m talking about good enough performance. Even if it is just 50%.
As I said, Intel engineers did ARM binary translation without any “magic buzz” about it. It just works.
viton,
“I didn’t made such a performance claims. I’m talking about good enough performance. Even if it is just 50%.”
I’ve repeatedly said that efficiency is important to me, why do you think I’m so fixated on the optimiser? It’s not just for the sake of complexity.
“As I said, Intel engineers did ARM binary translation without any ‘magic buzz’ about it. It just works.”
Are you talking about running ARM/Android software on atoms?
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5365/intels-medfield-atom-z2460-arriv…
That’s um, the opposite.
This following link however is closer to what I am talking about:
http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/10/russian-hackers-arm/
“Elbrus Technology’s secret sauce is its binary translator with multiple layers of hand-tuned optimization.”
They are getting 40% efficiency btw. Hopefully that will convince you that highly efficient translation is difficult and needs a target optimizer. If you still don’t want to admit that, well what can I say, we’ll just have to disagree.
I’m not trying to stop you =)
“the best is the enemy of the good”
I’m still very skeptical about the overall experience but we’ll have to wait and see for ourselves.
Phones are around for significant period of time. Compatibility and performance are good enough.
I mentioned Eltech in my second post.
Edited 2013-01-12 13:03 UTC
So we can finally agree that the direct translation approach has inefficiencies that cannot be avoided without optimising the code for ARM. Whew, that took a while!
You say efficiency isn’t important to you if but if an optimiser could significantly increase active runtime of the CPU between charges and has no negative trade-offs, then it would be significant to a lot of (and even most) ARM users.
As I wrote, I’d prefer just to re-schedule translated code to fit issue slots. I didn’t understand why you’re mentioned flag registers overhead. So you probably thought about x86 flag register update after every operation? Sorry I didn’t stated that explicitly, but translation engine should trace flags usage for basic blocks. This is a baseline requirement.
I’m not sure that you’ll achieve a _much better_ results with complex optimizations.
I read about modules for LLVM to do this a while back.
The idea is to use LLVM, read the x86 machine code and “compile” it into the LLVM intermediate representation, then compile that into ARM or PPC or whatever.
Last I heard it worked pretty well on code compiled with GCC or LLVM, much less well on custom machine code, and it had some trouble determining the real byte sizes of some variables.
Still, it’d be a good place to start.
zlynx,
“I read about modules for LLVM to do this a while back…Still, it’d be a good place to start.”
+1!
Sadly I cannot actually afford to take on the project as an unpaid hobby, but this is the kind of CS stuff I had ambitions of doing when I entered the field. Screw you PHP \:(
Edit: what the heck is the emoticon for anger?
Edited 2013-01-10 20:45 UTC
We’re already on Win32.
Such a project is just a simple JIT for user mode instructions. Static binary translation works too, since most binaries are static. Intel did this with Android – not a big deal. The most difficult part here is a validation.
But if you’re not going to be running existing Windows software, what exactly is the selling point of Windows then? What’s the added value of Metro apps over, say, Android, which has much more software available for it and is far less developer hostile (since it gives you lots more freedom on how to develop software for it).
This has puzzled me about Microsoft’s Windows RT strategy ever since they announced it. They offer an Apple-priced product with the same lack of openness and far less software. But the market doesn’t need another Apple, that need has already been covered.
I could have answered consitency, but that i clrearly not the case as skeumorphism is still allowed withing Rt applications. I have been using my w7 mobile for a while now and even though i really regretted it at fisrt i have really learned to hate it.
Nokia is known for their hardware, they f|ed it up on my model though as the shitty battery keeps falling out in my pocket. Hope they do better with their other phones, since the one i got surely does not cut it.
I have omitted the mode name *most users that have one know the problem i am talking about( as the apologists for microsoft will rip me a new one by any unfounded reason they can find. I just do not care any more.
Which phone do you have? I have the Lumia 710 and it is pretty solid.
I’ve never heard of this issue occurring, but I would get in contact with Nokia support as I doubt this is the experience they have in mind. In the past they’ve been very kind in helping me resolve some one-off issues I had with a developer handset I was sent.
Microsoft has a three good things going for it that Apple (and Android) doesn’t: OEM relationships, Enterprise support/integration, and size.
With a wide range of OEMs able to make Windows RT systems, prices will drop far below what Apple will sell their gear for (while hopefully some will maintain high-end quality), and be in the range of Android devices.
Next, Microsoft has strong Enterprise relationships. If they buy tablets, they’ll probably end up buying Microsoft tablets, for a couple of reasons. First, Microsoft has long supported the Enterprise, and has a reputation of maintaining compatibility for a long time. Second, there are these little things called Roadmaps that Microsoft makes easily available. I don’t think I’ve ever seen an official Apple roadmap. Remember when Apple abruptly dropped the X-Serve? Windows RT has tight integration with existing management tools that come with Windows Server. Equivalent tools for iPads and Android tools just aren’t as good in Windows-centric environment.
A secondary effect of enterprise adoption is that people may pick up the same devices for home. This is part of the success of the IBM PC. When people brought computers home, they would get compatible systems.
Now, one thing that will effect that previous point is the shift towards people bringing their own device. This is a relatively new thing, and as it becomes more commonplace, I expect it to actually accelerate. Once companies get used to supporting devices brought from home, they’ll probably insist on it as a way to save money. This could halt enterprise adoption in the long run, more than just unfamiliarity with a new platform would in the short term.
Finally, Microsoft is a behemoth, and they surely recognize the value of the markets that they aren’t really participating in. Remember how everybody said there was no room for the XBox, that having Nintendo, Sony, and Sega was crowded enough? Well, Sega is gone, and Nintendo is being increasingly relegated to the handheld market. If Microsoft plays the same strategy, they have a good chance at success.
There, fixed.
Otherwise 2 out of 3 do not apply for the mobile/low power space: Apple is arguably larger than MS from a valuation standpoint, and Google has far more traction with Phone/Tablet OEMs.
Microsoft still has the enterprise market, which is a nice chunk… but it’s hurting for growth.
Edited 2013-01-09 07:08 UTC
Actually a large PC manufacturer is giving my company a windows RT based tablet Gratis, in the hope that we find it to be awesome and order a gazillion more. The company in question has never done this before with any product.
So that counts for something, I think. I imagine some companies will take them up on their offer to order more.
Microsoft has strong relationships with the likes of Lenovo and Dell, who make good convertables, and will likely move past just convertables, as the full-on PC market is slowing in growth.
Though, I concede the Enterprise point as it relates to Windows RT. I had thought Windows RT would integrate with Active Directory; I now know that it doesn’t. It can’t join a domain, so GP settings can’t be applied systematically.
However, this won’t apply to many x86-based tablets.
Except that Microsoft is going full-ahead in alienating their OEMs by selling a tablet that is vastly more popular the OEM offerings. If I were in business, I’d be very suspicious if my supplier were competing with me in my sole area of business.
Sure, hardly anything beats being golf buddies with the CIO of a Fortune 500, but then, these aren’t real points of merit, but simply back room deals.
And that’s an argument for buying a Windows tablet how? Remember the Windows Phone 7.5 -> 8.0 “no upgrades for you suckers” debacle? Yeah, they’ll tell you all about the features you’re not going to get.
Care to provide references? I’m not aware of any.
Both iOS and Android have full ActiveSync support with remote policy management, remote wipe, etc. What tools does Windows RT have more?
Yes, and you know what platforms they are authorizing for bringing into the enterprise? Android and iOS – I work on exactly such a project for a bank. They want their front-office people to use their own devices rather than the bank having to buy the devices for them, and as a consequence, *the bank* has to adapt to Android and iOS devices their employees own, and not the other way around.
Ah, well, here we can agree. Microsoft sure knows how to drown a problem in money until it goes away. Why compete on technical merit, if you can just buy your way into a market. But it isn’t answering my original question: why should people give Microsoft their money? In essence, your answer here amounts to “because Microsoft will make sure you have no other choice”.
You are wrong, Windows RT does not have any of the properties you mentioned. Windows 8 on Intel-based devices has these properties.
Their enterprise support for Windows RT currently still sucks, because it does not integrate with the current solution for PCs. And is still very new (read: buggy ?) even newer than Windows 8/RT.
For me, the potential for running the same apps on desktop and tablet (and hopefully phone in the future) holds a lot of appeal. Granted, I don’t want to run things like Visual Studio, but I LOVE being able to get Facebook notifications via the built-in Messenger app on Windows 8. I wish I had this same functionality for all of my phone and tablet apps. For example, if I have a grocery list app on my phone, I don’t have to worry about if it has an online sync component if I want to use it on my desktop – I just fire up the same app on the desktop, and save the list to Skydrive. As it is, if I want to be able to share data from apps between my Android phone/tablet and the desktop, I’m usually relegated to some shitty web app, that may require a browser extension or three just to make it usable. Granted, Metro apps are still in their infancy, but I hope it matures into a decent app ecosystem.
As for running ‘classic’ desktop apps on a tablet, even if I COULD do this, would I really want to? I usually don’t walk around with a keyboard and mouse in my back pocket
Edited 2013-01-09 02:07 UTC
Why not, when this is available? http://www.amazon.com/Bluetooth-Handheld-Keyboard-Multi-Touchpad-Po…
I have one for my Raspberry Pi and it works amazingly well. So far I’ve only had to charge it twice in three weeks, including the initial charge, and the laser pointer is fun for messing with my fiancee’s dog.
They also make a USB wireless version for use with computers without Bluetooth, though this one does come with a Bluetooth dongle as a nice bonus.
How is the keypress on the keyboard itself? It looks bad from the pictures. I have a bluetooth keyboard right now that’s just terrible to type with. I’m faster with onscreen keyboards than it. I’m not asking for a model m, but something with some action and speed would be enough for me.
It’s actually pretty good, the keys have a definite “click” feeling and are consistent. Keeping in mind it’s a thumb keyboard, it’s a big step up from every mobile phone keyboard I’ve ever used. It feels somewhat like a Motorola Cliq with the rounded keys, but the spacing is better. The only issue might be if you have small hands; the trackpad on the right can’t be avoided easily but my large hands adapt very well to it.
Once again though, it is a mobile keyboard so you won’t be writing a thesis paper with it. It’s great for those times you need a portable keyboard though; it works very well so far with every device I’ve used it on.
But you can’t, can you? Save for a “handful” of brand new Metro apps, the vast bulk of Windows software doesn’t run on both. Essentially, it’s like saying that you’re going to buy a computer now in the hopes that at some point in the future you hope somebody will develop something that will run on both your tablet and your PC.
This, so far, isn’t an argument for Windows 8, it’s just about a messaging and notification frame that doesn’t suck. Android 4.2, for instance, already has that (you can respond to notifications, including responding to messages, directly from the notifications panel).
On Android 4.2 you do, for both phones and tablets.
What does the UI have to do with app functionality? If you’re developing an app for grocery lists that integrates across devices, you’d be crazy to tie it to some Windows-specific functionality (and automatically kill most of your market). Most all software is developed in two tiers here, a generic back-end, and a specific UI front-end. Metro only lowers the barriers for UI design, but it in no way eases the problems with data sharing.
Why would you be carrying those around? How about a wireless dock? I already have a 27” Samsung “wireless dock” monitor with UWB. Get within a few feet of it with my laptop and it automatically hooks up my monitor, sound, USB ports with keyboard and mouse and network to it, no need to attach cables, or even take the machine out of the bag. Now imagine being able to do so with your tablet, or better yet, phone! Noo, clearly, why would anybody want to do that?
Well, of course I can’t do that YET, which is the reason why I’m still running Android
And I’m not even sure Metro will pan out into a mature ecosystem, but I hope it does.
I think you’re missing the point here. I tried about a dozen different grocery apps on Android until I found one I liked. But it has absolutely no online sync functionality whatsoever, so I can’t input items on my computer with a real keyboard, as I would like. The todo list app I use DOES have online sync, but the web interface is kind of janky. I guess I could use something like Bluestacks, but then how do I get my data and settings over to the phone/tablet? Now, if all the Android apps I used where I wished to have interoperability with my desktop had slick web frontends that made data input seamlis on the desktop, you and I would not be having this conversation, except for apps like Google Plus et al, where I want desktop notifications WITHOUT needing a goddamn extension for whatever browser I’m using.
With Metro, every app that you have on a tablet will automatically work on the desktop, and most of them let you save to Skydrive, which makes swapping back and forth a breeze. I’m hoping they’ll eventually port all this to Windows Phone as well.
Obviously, I understand that this is mostly theoretical at this point, since there aren’t a lot of useful apps out yet. I’m just speaking of the potential of it all and why I am excited about Metro, not what the situation is right now. If I’m running Windows-only devices, I don’t care if the stuff uses only Windows technology. In fact, I would consider that a bonus.
Edited 2013-01-10 00:19 UTC
Evernote should do what you want. AFAIK it can do check-lists, there’s an app for almost all platforms, and you can sync it online. I don’t use Evernote myself, but I just thought to mention it to you in case you find it useful.
Well, I can think of several reasons:
1. Firstly, and most importantly; Microsoft Office. Corporate users live and breathe MS Office. And, while the full office suite isn’t available yet on RT, it will be, and that’s going to be a huge draw for lots of people.
And no, OOo isn’t a real substitute. You know it. I know it. Everybody knows it.
2. Microsoft is the only shop in town doing the whole same-experience-on-all-platforms thing. Whether you love or hate it, it’s a point of differentiation.
Personally, after almost vomiting explosively when I first started using Win8 on the desktop, I’m slowly coming around.
3. Look and feel. The metro (or whatever it’s called now) desktop is great on mobile devices. They have the best integration with social media, and it’s a pleasure to use.
And no, I don’t work for Microsoft! 🙂
Alas, is that really a good thing? As it stands, the platforms are wildly differing in specs and therefore you’re limiting yourself on how you can present yourself to the end-user and how the end-user can interact with you. Personally I don’t view it as a positive thing; Metro is way, way too limited on an actual PC and one has to interact with it by emulating touch-screen gestures — I do not view a unified experience worth the losses in ease-of-use and features.
I think that times are changing. The mouse will augment the touch experience instead of touch augmenting the mouse experience, in pretty short order.
OEMs are finally getting around to less brainddead form factors and I think there’s a shift in how people use their devices occurring.
Intel will in the near future require all devices bearing the Ultrabook name to support things like Touch, NFC, and other sensors + protocols. The difference between our traditional devices and our mobile devices are becoming less pronounced.
Add to that the fact that Intel continues to aggressively push into ultra low power, even with their Core series, and you start to get a compelling story for pushing for a unified ecosystem.
Metro and the WinRT will evolve. I’m sure it will contain a bunch of Mouse and Keyboard specific improvements and some more flexibility in the near future.
I really doubt that. Atleast my arm would get really tired very quickly if I had to always reach out to touch the display on my desktop, and it would not only be tedious, but also slower. On mobile devices the assessment is irrelevant as they don’t use a mouse anyways.
One can only hope so, but I wouldn’t hold my breath.
I don’t know, people say this, but I have absolutely no issue using my Surface for an extended amount of time while it has its stand out on the table.
I do think once an OEM perfects the “convertible” form factor that what I say will be much more realistic. Surface is already there, but Surface is just one device of many.
I interact with my Surface 90% of the time with touch, and the rest of the time I use the Touch Cover, often with the stand out.
Switching between apps, semantic zoom, scrolling is all usually done via touch. Its really not much more reaching than a pure tablet.
Though I can see on a Desktop how reaching out to touch those big All in Ones would get tiresome. I’d suggest using a touch sensitive trackpad or mouse there.
Why wouldn’t you hold your breath? WinRT improved leaps and bounds during the Betas and that was just from Beta -> RTM . Post RTM I’m sure they’re working on making the thing less rough around the edges.
There are definitely broken aspects of WinRT when it comes to Mouse+KB that make apps suck more, and its not something inherent to Metro, but more how the underlying XAML platform handles Scrolling and UI Virtualization.
I’ve spent probably more time than I’d like making sure my app works well on Mouse+KB, and they’ve said that my issues and others like it are scenarios they’re looking at for the future. I think they hear the feedback pretty clearly.
No window management = pile of shit. As simple as that. Unless Metro gets proper window management, it’s nothing but a pointless toy on desktops/laptops.
I don’t think that it is as simple as that. Most non technical users use one app at a time, maximized. They might have several apps open, but they switch back and forth, they don’t do window management, they do application management.
We are not normal users. Don’t get fooled into thinking that because we do something one way, that the entire computing base do things in the same way, if that was the case, the market would look entirely different.
This is not my experience – at all. Virtually everyone I know uses multiple windows at least for some tasks, and even when they maximise, the taskbar still *delivers context*. In Metro, everything, even anchor elements like the task switcher, is hidden away, only available through clicks or gestures.
It adds a lot of overhead to everything, especially when you add desktop applications into the mix. You can’t switch straight to your desktop application from a Metro application – no, you first have to bring up the application switcher, select the desktop, and only *then* can you select the proper application.
It’s an overly complicated cumbersome mess.
My own experience with Windows 8 went like this:
1. Opening the Desktop and using Windows Explorer to browse a folder with pictures;
2. Double-click one picture, to open it;
3. The picture opens up in a full-screen Metro application. So far so good;
4. Spend 5 minutes trying to go back to where I was before, in Desktop mode;
5. Pressing Escape sent me to the Metro application, I was basically stuck with it. Then I found out that I could use Alt-F4, but there was no visual indication whatsoever;
6. Something similar happened when I tried playing a sample MP3 file;
7. Giving up on Windows 8 forever.
Someone doesn’t know how to use Windows key + D.
So, we’re talking about people who supposedly use everything fullscreen, but do know AND use these keyboard shortcuts?
Sure. Makes sense.
He has the gentoo logo as his Avatar, he is hardly a normal user.
Where is the usability of that? Would my mother know about it? The problem stays the same. New computer interfaces have been completely ignoring usability guidelines, hiding stuff for whatever reason, and it’s not even remotely funny. I’m talking about Windows 8 but not only: GNOME 3 (which I use) comes to mind as well. But it’s curious that they always talk about “usability”, apparently not knowing the meaning of the word.
Edited 2013-01-09 16:36 UTC
We are not in the age anymore where people have never used a computer before. Quite a majority of older people are silver surfers and manage quite well on anything from Windows XP to bloody SAP interfaces (which are entirely shit).
In any case you were talking about you using it not your mother or anyone else.
Edited 2013-01-09 22:39 UTC
I don’t think it should take you five minutes. It doesn’t take my mother five minutes and she spends all day with my Surface+Touch Cover.
You can either use Window+D, just the Windows Key (Takes you back to the recently used app), or use the Hotcorner/Edge gesture on the left of the screen to bring up the Windows Task switcher.
Microsoft has gotten feedback that including the tutorial at the beginning of Windows during OOBE greatly improved the discoverability of such a feature.
If still, for some reason, Joe sixpack can get it and you can’t, then you can always use Alt+Tab.
In fact, its rather curious that you didn’t go straight for Alt+Tab, since its how you would do it using Windows 7.
You’re like a kid that cant get his round peg into a square hole and throws the toy against the wall instead of searching for the round hole.
You almost had it
Not at all. In Windows 7 or in any other popular operating system or window manager (ratpoison doesn’t count) I would just click the little “X” button on the corner of the Window. It’s something highly visible and useful. Or I could just click on the Window that I was before because I could see it. There’s nothing wrong with this old-fashined (sarcasm) approach.
But there is this modern idea that WIMP is dead, the mouse is dead, discoverabiliity is dead, etc.. Whatever.
You don’t need to close Metro apps, that’s why the close functionality is obscured.
Metro apps are automatically suspended when you navigate away from them, their memory released when under memory pressure, and they’re automatically terminated when pressure becomes so great that the system deems it right to do so.
Metro apps are also programmed to save state in the event of any of this happening so it is entirely transparent to the user.
Are you running into a situation where an open Metro app is somehow detracting from your experience or is it OCD on your part?
Also re: The Alt+Tab, that’s how I switch apps on Windows 7. You mentioned “going back to” so I figured that was the functionality you needed.
If you absolutely must close a Metro app, you can drag from the top of the screen to the bottom or use Ctrl+F4, but again, you shouldn’t have to.
Most of the people I work with, in my department at a University (118 employees, several dozen students) work that way, it drives me crazy, but that’s they way they are. In all the other jobs I’ve had (I’m 41, I’ve been doing this for awhile now) it’s been the same way. Users just don’t do window management, for the most part. Power users, sure, Geeks, sure, but the 30 yr old receptionist? No way.
A receptionist at my workplace is now on a Windows 8 pilot and complains constantly about having to use keyboard shortcuts to switch between desktop to metro apps and then loose track about what she was doing. Previously, all she had to do was hover her mouse over the taskbar and click the right app to complete something as simple as copy/paste.
The reason I have found why most people use apps fullscreen are because of the puny screens with low res on mainstream PCs. How many laptop users have you seen using anything better than a 14″ screen with a crappy 1366×768 res? How much improvement would that even be on a 15″ desktop monitor at that res?
Unfortunately, gone are days of minimum 15″ WUXGA displays all in the name of small cheap to manufacture HD displays. Feels like we’ve regressed to those godawful XGA displays of yesteryear.
I’ve got users with 24 inch monitors that do full screen, they love the monitors, still don’t do window management.
They just don’t see the benefits of it.
BluenoseJake,
“I’ve got users with 24 inch monitors that do full screen, they love the monitors, still don’t do window management.”
Ok, but WIMP already has them covered too without eliminating functionality for the rest of us. With metro they’ve taken a one-size-fits all approach, but the premise is flawed; the desktop environment is extremely diverse both in terms of uses and use cases. By imposing a least common denominator approach across devices from tablets to 24inch desktops, it becomes a limiting factor for desktop users. Even for full screen apps I think throwing away context as metro does is a case of style over function.
The desktop is still there, they haven’t removed anything but the start menu, if you do window management, then use the desktop, that’s what I do, if you don’t, then it won’t matter
[quote]It adds a lot of overhead to everything, especially when you add desktop applications into the mix. You can’t switch straight to your desktop application from a Metro application – no, you first have to bring up the application switcher, select the desktop, and only *then* can you select the proper application.[/quote]
Or you can just press ALT+TAB, like we have done since…..Windows 95 at least.
I really loved the way Windows 7 added “pin to left/right 50%” and I also don’t like how apps works on big screens (the 25%/75% is useless to me). But the above is just misinformation
I agree, apps would benefit from 50-50 splits. I hope they add it in the future.
I don’t think the success of Metro hinges on your personal opinion of what it can/can’t do.
Metro does include some Window Management in the form of Snapped, Filled, and Full View States and the combination between the two.
In addition, Metro is one of the few operating environments to allow you to do this on a Tablet, further enhancing productivity.
The goal of Windows 8 and of the Metro design language s fierce reduction of the unnecessary. Maybe you manage 10-20 windows at once, but Microsoft’s own telemetry suggests its far from the norm.
I hope in the future Microsoft improves on this, and chances are they will, but for now it is far from the situation you try to paint.
I have said this before; but if you’re doing all this PR for Microsoft pro bono, you’re missing on some very nice monetizing opportunities.
Edited 2013-01-09 18:31 UTC
I make quite a good living already. Not that Microsoft would want someone who constantly criticizes decisions they make regarding their developer platform.
Me replying to meritless criticism doesn’t make me in the tank for anyone. It just makes me consistent.
Didn’t I just say that mobile device are irrelevant in this context? Try using a 24″ display, sitting on the table along with a keyboard, mouse and all the usual desktop accessories and see how much you like reaching over all those to poke at the screen.
You saying mobile devices are irrelevant does not make them so. If you’re in a minority and use a 24 inch display (And you are undoubtedly the minority, according to Microsofts usage data) then there are a variety of peripheral solutions ranging from gesture enabled track pad addons to Kinect-like motion detection, to eye detection, to multi touch mice.
Or you can just do what I do and get Windows 8 drivers for your Synaptics track pad if they’re out. My drivers at least are not brain dead (ie: Left swipe on my trackpad is a left swipe on Windows, and swipes from the edges of the Trackpad bring up charms)
That, and I think it is silly to assume that even large screen form factors wont evolve. All-In-Ones will likely need to face a rethinking of their interaction models to fit with our new touch enabled future.
*sigh* Do you do that on a purpose or are you just daft? I clearly said “in this context” as I have been talking about the desktop all the time — not mobile devices.
How large is this “minority” in question, though? Even if 10% of Windows-users used a 17″+ display we’d be talking about tens of millions of people.
Most desktop computers do not ship with track-pads.
Oh, they will evolve eventually, but it’s equally silly to assume that touch is the solution. It’s not something you can fix on the software-side of things when the limitations are in the real world, it would take something completely new and, well, that doesn’t exist yet.
Its easy to single out a minority demographic and craft a criticism. You can criticize any operating system for not meeting the needs of a configuration if you limit the scope enough.
I think you’re asking the wrong question. The correct question is how far along are those people in the Upgrade Cycles of their PCs? How soon will they purchase a new machine all together?
Will that new PC be a Desktop? How many new purchases of PCs are Desktops with 24 inch screens?
How many of them will be sold or advertised without the peripherals I noted as possible solutions?
That’s the important question. Microsoft likely clearly saw that the trends were pointing towards a waning interest in Desktop computing and accepted a new reality that mobile computing devices are the future.
That was in general, but there are plenty of Mouses, especially the better ones by Microsoft that augment the experience by adding touch enabled interactions.
I think when the churn in PC upgrade cycles are realized, you’ll see devices which include touch as an increasingly useful interaction method.
A majority of these will likely be touch enabled Laptops or multi purpose convertibles.
I don’t see Desktops playing a major role in the future. Tablets are going to do to Laptops what Laptops did to Desktops, probably over the next few release cycles.
Nelson,
“Its easy to single out a minority demographic and craft a criticism. You can criticize any operating system for not meeting the needs of a configuration if you limit the scope enough.”
It goes both ways, you want to limit the scope to mobile devices where metro’s touch UI is much stronger, but it’s totally fair to criticise it on the desktop. It’s not merit-less criticism either, there are very good points, you just have a difference of opinion, which is fine.
I think a crucial difference is that mobile devices are in the majority and are trending upwards while Desktop devices are not.
This is a reality that a lot of people on this website will need to come to grips with. Times have changed. If you don’t want to upgrade to Windows 8, fine. But the reality is that a lot of people will.
Too many people conflate “Windows 8 isn’t exactly what I want” to “Windows 8 will undoubtedly fail”.
Windows isn’t engineered around the specific need of one person, or even a sizable number of people. It is engineered in a manner to cater to both where the industry is and where the industry is going.
If Microsoft had just released Windows 7+ with minimal improvements, it would’ve been a disaster. Microsoft needed direction. Windows 8 gives them direction.
Nelson,
“I think a crucial difference is that mobile devices are in the majority and are trending upwards while Desktop devices are not.”
You are correct to observe that the tablet market is growing while the desktop market is not, that’s expected since the desktop market is already mature. Never the less, criticism of metro on the desktop still holds.
“If Microsoft had just released Windows 7+ with minimal improvements, it would’ve been a disaster.”
These are strange times…when giving people what they would have wanted is considered a disaster.
In general, people know what they want today. Not tomorrow. If you’re building a foundation for the future you need to know what consumers want, before they want it.
Plus, I’m unconvinced that a majority of people do not want Windows 8 or would’ve preferred Windows 7+ over Windows 8.
Nelson,
“In general, people know what they want today. Not tomorrow. If you’re building a foundation for the future you need to know what consumers want, before they want it.”
It will be difficult to improve metro on the desktop without swinging the pendulum back towards the WIMP and better context features that got thrown away. Also the walled garden would be a major setback for desktop computing, assuming metro were successful.
“Plus, I’m unconvinced that a majority of people do not want Windows 8 or would’ve preferred Windows 7+ over Windows 8.”
Hey I like windows 8 too, but I just wish I could get the “windows 8 – metro” edition just to send microsoft and fans the message that it’s *windows* and not metro that I’m buying.
I don’t doubt that this is what will happen, but in a sensible manner. I can envision more options for snapping apps side by side.
I don’t think we’ll ever see eye to eye, because I think you’re fixated on things that the normal layman doesn’t care about, and consequently would have no impact on their decision at sales time. I’m sure “the protection of Desktop Computing” doesn’t factor into their decision making process at all.
I think like I’ve said before, its time for some here to realize that times are changing.
Nelson,
“I don’t think we’ll ever see eye to eye, because I think you’re fixated on things that the normal layman doesn’t care about, and consequently would have no impact on their decision at sales time. I’m sure ‘the protection of Desktop Computing’ doesn’t factor into their decision making process at all.”
Many laymen and businesses do care, but alas they don’t care enough to avoid windows. Consider that it’s not *just* a switch from windows to something else, it’s also a switch from ms office to something else, from quickbooks to something else, from mssql to something else, outlook/exchange, loosing paid games & multimedia apps like netflix, store bought software, etc. Conversion costs for all of these are magnitudes greater than windows licenses and in most cases switching apps would not have merit to the user. So at the end of the day, windows would have to become extremely bad before most users could justify switching to anything else. If MS were a new market player without monopoly advantages you can bet that there would be much less of this “we know what’s best for you” attitude.
“I think like I’ve said before, its time for some here to realize that times are changing.”
Or it’s business as usual…
Edited 2013-01-10 16:13 UTC
..My thoughts in your reply to the above comment..
i.e. “I really doubt that.”…are the following:
Personally I’ve yet to use Metro/Win8/WinRT either via Touch or Keyboard and mouse(apart from v briefly in passing on other people’s machines)
But that said, I’ve thought several times about how touch interfaces and keyboard/mouse control might marry up better in the future. And my personal hope on that front is that some company, Wacom being the obvious choice with their existing expertise in touch and graphic tablet screen -via their Intuos, and more relevantly their Cintiq line, will come out with a tablet specifically designed as a fancy PC(/Mac) input device.
Rather than have to design complicated host machine drivers for essential a ‘dumb’ usb peripheral device – I personally reckon the best route to have it be a ‘plug in anywhere’ device would be have it basically be an low to mid range android tablet hardware wise but with a matte anti reflective screen and really good multi-touch. Non-slip mouse pad style backing. Pressure sensitivity for artistic or in-depth design work would NOT BE THERE or you’d be undercutting their own Cintiq line etc(for instance); That *should* also allow much lower costs. And sales could be huge I reckon.
Basically – whether or not you had built-in Android functionality/app capability as a bonus –
The MAIN/PRIMARY functionality of such hypothetical device….and here’s my point….would be to have the device mirror your primary 24″ screen to use as a ” ‘simple’ multi-touch pad with a picture”. And the big point of this for me would be (A)to facilitate the mouse-pointer ‘landing’ on the screen where-ever exactly your finger hits the ‘video-touch-pad’ –thereby removing the ever-so-slight but almost eternal annoyance of having to look for the pointer upon grabbing the mouse. Plus (B)would also facilitate local touch and multi-touch gestures without having to reach out your arm –which would certainly get tiring as you’ve said. Also for those with the extra cash, and/or the need for finer control – having an entire touch-enabled 24″ display available also, should you need it or want it, would simply become an occasional additional bonus if your main screen also has touch.
[[Personally I’d price such a ‘tablet/touchpad device’ at about the same as a Nexus 7(150GBP)though with a lower cpu and memory ; matte screen ; direct USB-screen mirroring and simple Mac/win/Linux self-installing plug-n-play driver for the toggle switch etc -see below]]
Lastly – sorry for rambling(probably TL;DR i know) – but this type of set-up would allow much greater use of ‘second’/’third’/’fourth’ virtual screens, which I know are available on Mac but I never use, and definitely on Linux where I sometimes do, and on Windows -I’m not sure I’ve only ever had 2nd Hardware screen on windows. But anyway, yes, if you had e.g. photoshop tool palettes on you 2nd screen, email open on your third -whatever..; if you could toggle between these xtra virtual screen via a button on the bottom of your ‘video-touch-pad’ and then when you touched e.g. a toolpad, the mouse would appear at that point automatically toggled to the correct screen on your main screen (or not). All sorts of possibilities.
I’ve meant to – but never got round to emailing Wacom – might do that now. Can I be bothered to tidy up my ramble for the idea to be taken seriously.. hmm.
*Thanks for reading*
I love these kind of ideas. I think someone, or many people across many companies are thinking of new and innovative ways to change the way we interact with computing.
As for the rest of your comment, I didn’t find it to be that much of a rant, and I agree with the premise of a lot of it. I’m excited for how we’re going to use computing moving forward.
I think there’s interesting things happening with using other screens to augment the main screen (Look at Smart Glass for example) but current implementations are primitive and rather clumsy. I think with some iteration they’ll be on to something.
I wasn’t making a call on whether it was good or bad. The OP said “what’s the difference?”. I was listing the differences.
I personally think that it’s the future, whether we like it or not. I think the rest will eventually follow suit.
I’ll have to strongly disagree. Corporate users live and breathe a subset of MS Office, which for the most part is completely replaceable by OpenOffice.org or LibreOffice. I’m not saying that is always the case, of course, but I have personally seen it done many times with zero training. It worked fine and it costed nothing. It is wrong to assume people specifically need MS Office for their office computing needs.
Besides, corporate users need to use more corporate products besides MS Office and those do not work in Windows RT, so promoting it is a moot point.
It’s completely replaceable if you’re just talking about writing documents or spreadsheets. But, of course, no companies do just that, so it isn’t replaceable at all.
I have worked for loads of high profile companies and none, repeat none, would ever consider OOo in a million years. The main reasons are the massive IP investment they all have in MS Office.
For example the tight integration with TFS and Sharepoint that you don’t get with OOo. And then there are the inevitable crap-tonne of Access and Excel VBA apps that run everything from timesheets to monitoring billion dollar LNG modules as I discovered in horror at Chevron.
It’s not an option.
It’s always an option. An option that can be shot down, of course.
You are making a generalization. For every example of a company that cannot change, I can give you an example of a company that can and did change. I know the corporate world, I’m not saying that MS Office is always replaceable – it’s not -, but there are many, many cases where it is. And sometimes it’s not even necessary to migrate an entire company, just some departments.
OpenOffice.org and LibreOffice also have other problems in the corporate wold, like the lack of MSIs and Group Policy integration.
It’s not new, internal documents you have to worry about (even though you should), but especially existing documents and those from outside the company. Even the simplest Word documents will render like complete ass in OOo – and I can know, I deal with these external documents from dozens of companies *every day* as a translator.
By which of course you mean they live and breathe the proprietary and incompatible MS Office file formats. Not that I dispute your claim, I just felt the need to clarify the situation.
Future, unannounced and speculated about products aren’t valid reasons to purchase a computer now, are they?
Er, not really. Android on phones and tablets is already converged and it’s just a question of when it will make the hop to even larger computing platforms still (a step it has arguably already taken – plenty of tablets allow HDMI output and keyboard+mouse input and the results work quite alright).
This is all great, but it’s subjective and it’s not something that will force users to do a platform and ecosystem change. “We believe feature X is 5% better on our devices!” isn’t something that will get average Joe’s attention. For that you have to have total killers, something nobody else can do at all (e.g. Android’s openness, low price, different handset styles, Apple’s polish, cool factor, etc.). From what I can see Microsoft is trying to literally poise themselves in between the two, but if you’re just a tiny dude between two heavyweights, chances are you’ll just get squashed.
And I totally believe you..
(just kidding)
Do you really, seriously believe that MS will not port their primary draw, and second most profitable piece of software to the platform?
I mean they are currently working on metrofying Office already! It’s pretty obvious.
Future, unannounced and speculated about products aren’t valid reasons to purchase a computer now, are they?
Notice how I never said that it would. The OP asked why anyone would possibly buy a Win8 device over the competition. I provided some reasons why they might
Edited 2013-01-09 23:36 UTC
We can both speculate all day long about what Microsoft is or isn’t going to do with their primary cash cows, but how their effort is going to turn out is an altogether different matter. They already tried to bolt on some touch control on the Office shipped in Surface RT and it’s been a bucket of fail so far. The desktop environment was included merely as a lazy patch simply for this huge fuckup – beside the purpose-built Metro interface it sticks out like a sore thumb, and it shows (lack of screen rotation, tiny GUI elements on windows that were clearly made for mouse, etc.). I’m not saying they won’t try, it’s just that I don’t see the Windows RT killer app yet (and by “killer app” I mean the feature/piece of software/something for which you’d be willing to buy the whole platform to get it – without it, any market newcomer is dead in the water). As such, the downsides seem to far outweigh the upsides of buying into Windows RT, for now.
Except that I’m not advocating for buying Android devices because of future nebulous promises (which is all that you were able to provide), but because of stuff already delivered right now (openness, huge app store, low price offerings, wide variety of hardware form factors). Also, Android has been shipping with “desktop” mode for more than a year already (have you tried the Asus Transformer?). But hey, why bother thinking your arguments through – let’s face it, it’s work.
No, I (the OP) asked what added value Microsoft’s solutions bring to the table. You presented a few ideas, and they’re neat, sure enough, but as yet unrealized, and as such, not really reason to buy into the platform. And when I showed to you that most of what you perceive as Microsoft future advantage has either already been realized by their competition (e.g. Android on the “desktop”), or is largely irrelevant to buyers (marginally better social media integration).
Of course, if we frame the question as “anything that might persuade somebody”, then you could say that having Microsoft’s logo on a computer is cool to some people, and you’d be right. But it wouldn’t answer what added value Microsoft brings to the game.
No one who has experience using a Surface tablet and an Android tablet would describe the Android experience (Nexus) as fluid or elegant, out of the box.
Of course it could be more so with customisations.
So i would not recommend Android to anyone who (needed) to ask about what tablet to get.
On the other hand, the problem with Surface is the high price. Microsoft seen as missing in action at the $200 level.
Edited 2013-01-09 19:31 UTC
I’ve both an iPad 3 and a Nexus 7 and I seriously don’t see any difference in interface fluidity. Nevertheless, suppose what you’re saying on fluidity is real (and “elegant” is a subjective measure), let’s keep in mind that the Betamax was also technically superior. But ultimately it didn’t count. Being a little better at some things isn’t going to get you any converts. You have to be a lot better, or be able to do something the other guys just plain cannot do at all.
If you’re basing your recommendations purely on interface reaction times and subjective impressions of design instead of than real usability, I suspect you might be viewing your computing devices more as fashion accessories, rather than tools of utility.
So in all, you have yet to present a case why people should buy into a product that is, arguably, marginally better at UI presentation while being more expensive and unambiguously less useful (less software available). Doesn’t sound like a winner to me…
Both experiences suck; Android in tablets/controvertibles is “meh” at best. And Microsoft’s RT is the definition of schizophrenic by dropping users back and forth the metro/desktop modes.
Microsoft is in a tight spot in the tablet/mobile space: from a cost perspective RT is not as attractive to OEMs as Android is. Whereas for end users RT does not have anywhere near the already established app/media ecosystem of the iPad. MS is left with their main value proposition for their tablets being a half assed port of Office, which it’s a feature only a few tablet users demand.
Edited 2013-01-10 08:31 UTC
Even at $200 I would still recommend the iPad mini for the typical user. It would still be worth the $130 premium due to the software library. I also think the Kindle/Nook tablets are a better offering as well.
Surface RT is just a bad idea. They’re basically trying to sell Office Junior plus IE all while pissing off Windows developers by discarding the APIs they built up over the last 10 years.
What they need to do is bury all these bad ideas and pretend the Sinofsky era never existed.
I have real world experience of this. the idea was to give a tablet to a relative very unexperienced in tech, primarily for communications skype + some plus. I rapidly discovered:
* how chaotic whole Android UI system is. while people talk about a the metro/desktop split. i find android to have a about 7 – 8 such splits.
* surface rt’s metro UI (simple) / desktop (complex) split is more of a phantom problem. surface is very easy to navigate. however it was out of the question to give someone totally tech naieve something that expensive for Skype + plus reading.
* iPad is simpler than surface Rt and easy to navigate. But again the price is too high
It is hardly a jailbreak.
Once the device is rebooted it can’t run the code.
Edited 2013-01-09 14:23 UTC