win8 The Windows 8 desktop on ARM: Here it is!

[PGHammer]

I think they need to cut the desktop and other "classic" looks from the ARM version. I can see too many "joe average" people getting confused with this.

Then what would be the point of the ARM netbook? (You did notice one of those in the video, didn't you?)

ARM-based netbooks are the lightest-usage netbook. Small spreadsheets, documents, Web-browsing and *maybe* e-mail. Right now, tablets and slates are alone in that price space. Are you basically saying that keyboards and mice (despite both being commodity-priced today) have no place there? The ARM-based netbook is not just there to take on higher-priced and thirstier Windows-based notebooks, Ultrabooks, netbooks, tablets and slates - but to give those that are currently using iPad2s and Android tablets a real choice - with a UI they already are familiar with. And at the same price-point.

Moving up to an x86/x64-powered - but the same formfactor - netbook, Ultrabook, tablet or slate loses you nothing compared to WOA except shorter battery life - the UI is the same. You also gain compatibiity with the entire raft of existing Wiin32 (and, with an apropos CPU - Win64) applications, hardware-appropriate games, etc.

Moving further up to traditional hardware that isn't portable - the desktops and workstations. Same UI. Same application range as the portable x86/x64 hardware (if anything, a bit wider due to not being constrained by anything except portability). Both pricier than portables and more powerful as well.

[Stetson]

Finally - someone that gets it!

That is indeed the point of dual APIs.

WinRT - both CPU-neutral and UI-neutral. Runs on WOA and big-brother Windows 8.

Win32 - UI-neutral, but not CPU-neutral. Exclusive to Windows 8 and earlier.

ARM has advantages when it comes to battery life - the trade-off is incompatibility with Win32. If you want the formfactor, but also want Win32 applications, that's what Ultrabooks and x86/64 tablets and slates are for. (That was why there were ARM netbooks, in addition to ARM tablets and slates, in the WOA blog video.)

x86/x64 offers the widest compatibility range - both WinRT and Win32 applications, games, etc. work just fine. Disadvantage (portables) - shorter battery life compared to ARM, weight, higher price.

By keeping the UIs separate, Apple has made two major errors - they have fragmented their userbase AND created the issue of *transition fatigue* within that userbase. (The latest iPad2 sales metrics illustrate that iPad2 is eating into sales of traditional Macs - the *transition fatigue* issue is quite real.)

Google has had it no easier with Android - why else did Google create Ice Cream Sandwich (4.0)? Similar issue - except that the transition was between smartphones and tablets/slates; they deliberately have avoided addressing netbooks (instead, they have pushed the Chromebook into that area.)

With the tag-team of WOA and Windows 8, there are two APIs that, between them, cover everything from the tablet/slate/netbook/ultrabook formfactor to high-end gaming desktops and workstations (if you include Windows 8 Server, it can technically be said to cover the various flavors of server as well). The range of Linux without either the fragmentation/niche-ification issue that the various narrow-focus of Linux distributions has created - or the learning curve - due to the general UI being absolutely identical.

I feel like we're still having different conversations. Why does WOA have a desktop? It cannot run desktop apps other than those included and Office.

People looking at tablets in Best Buy are not going to want to hear about things like "WinRT", "Win32", "x86", or "ARM". They don't hear anything like that when they ask about an iPad and what apps it can run.

You also keep bringing up netbooks. Maybe they will make a comeback, but the current trend seems heavily leaning towards PC manufacturers ditching netbooks because they can't make any money off of them. Also, what would be wrong with a keyboard-and-trackpad netbook running exclusively Metro? I still think that that's a better scenario to explain to a customer than the "It's Windows but it can't run Windows apps" that Microsoft seems headed towards now.

The only real difference (to users, which is where I'm coming from in all of my posts) between iPad/Mac and WOA/Winx86/64 is that you cannot run Cocoa Touch apps on a Mac (except in a dev emulator which doesn't really count) while you can run Metro apps on Winx86/64.

Both iOS and OSX apps are written using the same languages and very similar frameworks. In many cases full code can be moved across.

Windows 8 does one better than this by providing a platform for true cross compatible code without recompiling.

Users don't see either of those.

Users see iPad apps and Mac apps and Metro apps and Windows apps.

-iOS devices run iOS apps.

-Macs run Mac apps.

-Cheap Windows 8 tablets and netbooks run Metro apps, and some Windows apps but only the ones included and Office even though it looks just like the Windows desktop you're used to.

-More expensive Windows 8 tablets and notebooks run Metro apps and all your Windows apps.

It just seems to me like making ARM based devices pure Metro devices (again, completely disregarding whatever frameworks or development systems are going on underneath) would be a much simpler system than the hybrid Microsoft is striving for.

Metro tablets run Metro Apps.

Metro netbooks run Metro Apps.

Windows tablets run Metro and Windows Apps.

Windows notebooks run Metro and Windows Apps.

Simple.

The fact that developers can share code between Metro apps on the different processor platforms and between Metro and non-Metro apps is an ecosystem bonus.

PS: I seriously doubt that Apple cares that the iPad is cannibalizing Mac sales. In fact I'm sure they figured it would happen long before the numbers showed it. It would be nice if Microsoft had the same attitude towards cannibalization.

[Zain Adeel]

Actually its very simple.

Windows on ARM will only allow u to download 3rd party apps through the store. simple.

where as the x86 version takes care of win32 apps. so.....

whats so hard here?

[+LogicalApex MVC]

<snipped>

Agreed, Microsoft can't show users a desktop while not really offering them a desktop experience. It will only cause the user to immediately expect that their device can act just like their PC only to become confused and angry when they learn it can't. The PC UI brings with it certain expectations that they aren't fully bringing to the table.

Unless they make this somehow perfectly reasonable to the "Average Joe" this could be the "feature" that kills Windows 8 tablets consumer perception.

Sadly, I'm sure Microsoft is doing this solely as a way to get Office onto the devices to leverage it as a competitive advantage while taking into account they didn't have the time (or ability) to redesign Office to have a purely Metro UI.

[Stetson]

Actually its very simple.

Windows on ARM will only allow u to download 3rd party apps through the store. simple.

where as the x86 version takes care of win32 apps. so.....

whats so hard here?

It's not really hard, it's just the whole "Hey, this looks like Windows 7 when I press this!" "Please disregard that, that's only for Office" thing seems a bit odd.

I guess it would be better if Microsoft came up with a branding name for these ARM devices. Apple doesn't call the the iPad a "Darwin/OSX on ARM Tablet".

It's really an issue of user presentation rather than technical behind-the-scenes stuff.

If instead of "Desktop" which took you to a screen with a superbar, task tray, and desktop icons, they could just have an "Office" (or "Word", "Excel", etc.) tile that opened the (desktop) Office apps in a completely stripped out desktop environment. Basically the only thing it would let you do would be manage multiple windows like you're used to with Office.

The same could be done for Explorer.

Then it would be extremely clear that the UI and apps are all part of Metro. Explorer and Office would be special apps, rather than going into the "Desktop" environment which has its own launchers and chrome.

[Yusuf M. Veteran]

I was excited about Windows 8 on ARM up until the part that said "the non-availability of third-party desktop applications". I wish they would allow developers to port their existing x86/64 apps.

Also, I imagine a lot of non-tech savvy users will be confused by Windows 8 on ARM. They'll see the traditional desktop UI and naturally assume that they can run x86 apps.

[Zain Adeel]

well i think MS made the right choice. Instead of making a metro explorer or office apps.

They are letting ARM users use explorer to the full extend and also to use Office apps with complete flexibility.

Thats actually a plus for ARM users. they cant do this kind of multitasking anywhere else.

[PGHammer]

It's not really hard, it's just the whole "Hey, this looks like Windows 7 when I press this!" "Please disregard that, that's only for Office" thing seems a bit odd.

I guess it would be better if Microsoft came up with a branding name for these ARM devices. Apple doesn't call the the iPad a "Darwin/OSX on ARM Tablet".

It's really an issue of user presentation rather than technical behind-the-scenes stuff.

If instead of "Desktop" which took you to a screen with a superbar, task tray, and desktop icons, they could just have an "Office" (or "Word", "Excel", etc.) tile that opened the (desktop) Office apps in a completely stripped out desktop environment. Basically the only thing it would let you do would be manage multiple windows like you're used to with Office.

The same could be done for Explorer.

Then it would be extremely clear that the UI and apps are all part of Metro. Explorer and Office would be special apps, rather than going into the "Desktop" environment which has its own launchers and chrome.

And thus preserving the existing niche-ification - who wins there? Apple is, in fact, losing traditional Mac users. The userbase (and the Android developers) forced the development of ICS forward.

Microsoft *cannot* afford to make the same mistake that Apple has made - which is, in fact, costing it. Google is, in fact, trying to unmake the similar error it made much earlier when it tried to separate tablets from smartphones - is keeping Android out of the netbook space a compounding of the same error?

You are confusing UIs with APIs - they are in fact, quite different. Metro is a design language - it is, in point of fact, both API-neutral and UI-neutral. Both Win32 and WinRT are APIs that are UI-neutral - what WinRT brings to the table (that Win32 lacks) is CPU-neutrality (at the expense of things that are simply unsuitable for WinRT as an API). I mentioned Acrobat Professional and Photoshop - neither is suitable for a WinRT rewrite (or therefore suitable for ARM). ARM (as an alternative to x86/64) is entirely about battery life - longer by at least an order of magnitude than the same formfactor designed around x86/64. However, there's a tradeoff - application compatibility (specifically, backward compatibility). You simply can't run current x86 (let alone x64) applications on ARM. Did we see *any* traditional ports (such as for optical media) on the ARM devices? I would think that, for the most part, the ARM devices will have but the one USB port - if that.

Windows 8 on x86/64 has the widest API compatibility - again, by design. Not only do you have access to all the WinRT-based applicaitons that are available for ARM, you still have access to the existing library of Win32 applications (including every application that Windows 7 supports today). While Office 15 for WinRT could, in fact, run on x86/64 (and, in the case of Home and Student Edition. may be positioned to do just that), Office 2010 runs on the WDP just fine today - in other words, the UI itself is irrelevant. You can't run the full version of Office 2010 on ARM - note that Access and Outlook were conspicuous by their absence.

Lastly, do you want multiple devices (each with a different UI)? That's exactly what we have today. It's bad enough with smartphones and traditional PCs. Throw in tablets and slates - with yet a third UI (different from both the phone and the desktop or notebook). If you work in an enterprise, you are facing often exactly that. And enterprise users *hate it*.

Other than Windows Phone, there is no UI difference between Windows 8 and Windows anywhere else. There is no UI difference at all between WOA and Windows 8 for x86/64. Windows 8 Server? If you do a full install (as opposed to a core install) the UI is no different than the desktop - or the netbook, Ultrabook, tablet, or slate. Learning/transition curve? For the most part, just device-specific functionality - the UI is unchanged.

[PGHammer]

well i think MS made the right choice. Instead of making a metro explorer or office apps.

They are letting ARM users use explorer to the full extend and also to use Office apps with complete flexibility.

Thats actually a plus for ARM users. they cant do this kind of multitasking anywhere else.

Exactly.

And when they need capabilities beyond that of ARM, they can move up to x86/64 on their platform of choice - with no learning curve whatever.

Going from iPad2 to OS X (any version) there is a marked transition (as the UIs are completely different). "Graduating" from Android - where do you go? Linux? A BSD? UNIX? OS X? Windows? All have a transition - even if you stick to the same applications. From WOA to Windows 8 - no transition - no learning curve, either. The UIs are identical - even though the API support is not. Windows 8 on x86/64 also supports WinRT - so the same applications you were familiar with and using on ARM can come with you to x86/64 - hence no *application* learning curve, either. Big win for users - an even bigger win for developers.

[Stetson]

And thus preserving the existing niche-ification - who wins there? Apple is, in fact, losing traditional Mac users. The userbase (and the Android developers) forced the development of ICS forward.

Last I saw Apple was still having record Mac sales quarters while the PC market was shrinking. Maybe I misunderstood.

Microsoft *cannot* afford to make the same mistake that Apple has made - which is, in fact, costing it. Google is, in fact, trying to unmake the similar error it made much earlier when it tried to separate tablets from smartphones - is keeping Android out of the netbook space a compounding of the same error?

Costing Apple in what way? Device sales? Revenue? Profit? Marketshare? Those seem like problems Microsoft is having right now in Mobile, not Apple.

You are confusing UIs with APIs - they are in fact, quite different. Metro is a design language - it is, in point of fact, both API-neutral and UI-neutral. Both Win32 and WinRT are APIs that are UI-neutral - what WinRT brings to the table (that Win32 lacks) is CPU-neutrality (at the expense of things that are simply unsuitable for WinRT as an API).

I understand the difference well. In fact my entire point is that users don't care about APIs. They benefit indirectly from using a platform with a better developer ecosystem, but what a user sees is UI.

I mentioned Acrobat Professional and Photoshop - neither is suitable for a WinRT rewrite (or therefore suitable for ARM). ARM (as an alternative to x86/64) is entirely about battery life - longer by at least an order of magnitude than the same formfactor designed around x86/64. However, there's a tradeoff - application compatibility (specifically, backward compatibility). You simply can't run current x86 (let alone x64) applications on ARM. Did we see *any* traditional ports (such as for optical media) on the ARM devices? I would think that, for the most part, the ARM devices will have but the one USB port - if that.

It sounds here like you're arguing exactly for my case. ARM is not a place for traditional legacy Windows apps. Why include the legacy desktop UI? Why give users the illusion that it's the same OS that they can run Photoshop on with their desktop PC when they can't actually do so?

Windows 8 on x86/64 has the widest API compatibility - again, by design. Not only do you have access to all the WinRT-based applicaitons that are available for ARM, you still have access to the existing library of Win32 applications (including every application that Windows 7 supports today). While Office 15 for WinRT could, in fact, run on x86/64 (and, in the case of Home and Student Edition. may be positioned to do just that), Office 2010 runs on the WDP just fine today - in other words, the UI itself is irrelevant. You can't run the full version of Office 2010 on ARM - note that Access and Outlook were conspicuous by their absence.

That's all great. The full Windows on x86 platform can run all the apps. I applaud Microsoft for that. This is all further evidence though that ARM is a completely different platform than x86. Why include the desktop UI on ARM when it may serve to confuse that issue?

Lastly, do you want multiple devices (each with a different UI)? That's exactly what we have today. It's bad enough with smartphones and traditional PCs. Throw in tablets and slates - with yet a third UI (different from both the phone and the desktop or notebook). If you work in an enterprise, you are facing often exactly that. And enterprise users *hate it*.

Different UIs for different interfaces can be a good thing. Microsoft clearly recognizes this. Remember back at CES 2010 when they argued that the traditional Windows 7 Desktop was a perfectly good touch interface? Seems like they've changed their position since then.

How would removing the desktop UI from ARM devices complicate this multiple UI issue you describe? There would still only be two UIs on Windows devices, Metro/Immersive which is available on both ARM and x86, and Desktop which is the realm of x86 only.

Other than Windows Phone, there is no UI difference between Windows 8 and Windows anywhere else. There is no UI difference at all between WOA and Windows 8 for x86/64. Windows 8 Server? If you do a full install (as opposed to a core install) the UI is no different than the desktop - or the netbook, Ultrabook, tablet, or slate. Learning/transition curve? For the most part, just device-specific functionality - the UI is unchanged.

Being able to transition up the product line is nice. I don't think Apple cares about this so much. They see the iPad eventually replacing the entire Mac market except for niche developers. The future is that the legacy desktop becomes the niche.

It seems to me that the only reason the Microsoft is including the desktop in WOA is as a stopgap.

My point is that making the UIs exactly the same (Metro + Desktop on both ARM and x86) is confusing to users because ARM and x86 are not the same. You make that point very well yourself. If ARM and x86 are not the same, and cannot and should not run the same apps, then why go for the illusion of making them look the same? I'm speaking specifically about the Desktop UI. Having Metro as a unified UI across all Windows devices is a good move, and it makes sense to the user. Every Windows device with the Immersive Metro interface (all of them come Windows 8) can run all Metro/Immersive software.

[PGHammer]

Last I saw Apple was still having record Mac sales quarters while the PC market was shrinking. Maybe I misunderstood.

Costing Apple in what way? Device sales? Revenue? Profit? Marketshare? Those seem like problems Microsoft is having right now in Mobile, not Apple.

I understand the difference well. In fact my entire point is that users don't care about APIs. They benefit indirectly from using a platform with a better developer ecosystem, but what a user sees is UI.

It sounds here like you're arguing exactly for my case. ARM is not a place for traditional legacy Windows apps. Why include the legacy desktop UI? Why give users the illusion that it's the same OS that they can run Photoshop on with their desktop PC when they can't actually do so?

That's all great. The full Windows on x86 platform can run all the apps. I applaud Microsoft for that. This is all further evidence though that ARM is a completely different platform than x86. Why include the desktop UI on ARM when it may serve to confuse that issue?

Different UIs for different interfaces can be a good thing. Microsoft clearly recognizes this. Remember back at CES 2010 when they argued that the traditional Windows 7 Desktop was a perfectly good touch interface? Seems like they've changed their position since then.

How would removing the desktop UI from ARM devices complicate this multiple UI issue you describe? There would still only be two UIs on Windows devices, Metro/Immersive which is available on both ARM and x86, and Desktop which is the realm of x86 only.

Being able to transition up the product line is nice. I don't think Apple cares about this so much. They see the iPad eventually replacing the entire Mac market except for niche developers. The future is that the legacy desktop becomes the niche.

It seems to me that the only reason the Microsoft is including the desktop in WOA is as a stopgap.

My point is that making the UIs exactly the same (Metro + Desktop on both ARM and x86) is confusing to users because ARM and x86 are not the same. You make that point very well yourself. If ARM and x86 are not the same, and cannot and should not run the same apps, then why go for the illusion of making them look the same? I'm speaking specifically about the Desktop UI. Having Metro as a unified UI across all Windows devices is a good move, and it makes sense to the user. Every Windows device with the Immersive Metro interface (all of them come Windows 8) can run all Metro/Immersive software.

And you are basically assuming that the *entire* low-end userbase is, in fact, that stupid.

Tell me - why has ANY attempt to put Windows on low-end hardware (even as a niche) failed? (I'm referring to Tablet PC Edition in particular.)

Could it be that the UI was, in fact, too different?

You are thinking that different architectures should have not just different APIs, but different UIs as well. How well has that worked for Android?

WOA is designed as an alternative to Windows 8 - where battery life and extreme portability are more important than backward-compatibility. The UI commonality is designed to eliminate transition issues - let alone transition fatigue.

And if Apple truly intends to get out of producing Macs, the userbase (which has been, until now, rabidly loyal) will feel decidedly screwed over.

And you are completely ignoring ARM on netbooks. No touch support. A standard keyboard and pointing device (such as a touchpad or TrackPoint device) - not necessarily a mouse.

If anything, WOA netbooks will be the anti-iDevice. A familiar user interface. A real keyboard. Smaller, but similar, versions of well-known applications. No transition issues from ARM/WOA to Windows 8 on x86/64. All for the same price (if not less) than iPad2, and priced similarly to Android devices of the same formfactor. (And there are exactly zero official Android netbooks today.)

[Zain Adeel]

thats a very good point.

You will be seeing Win8 from netbooks to AIO PCs.

and ARM devices from superthin tablets to even high def 7inch ones.

Meaning. WOA will have massive value to users and developers alike. As they will only have to develop for WinRT to get across the whole reach of Windows. From x86 to WOA. Whereas users will enjoy these apps regardless if they own WOA or x86.

That is a big big plus for both the developers and the consumers. Oh and also MS ( 30% on apps ) :p so everybody wins.

We should all be really happy that a company is so bold and confident to actually take this difficult step.

Apple wont dare do this. Look at how iOS is totally touch oriented. Mobile like multitasking.

I dont know much about Android but i know this much ICS can never match Windows :p

so MS can win big here. I hope. Just hope they dont screw up marketing and dont let ppl who gave bad name to Vista do it again to windows 8.

I downloaded Vista beta 2 and used that as my primary OS and then Vista. Then SP1 and i never had any problems. I didnt even have latest hardware. So it was all bull.... Vista was great for me. Never had a virus since. or any other hack. so i was really happy with it.

Sometimes you have to educate the market and i am sure MS will make sure ppl know what are the limitations of a WOA device. (we never know if AMD or Intels next x86 chips are super fast and super efficient we might even see slim tablets in those form aswell).

So the next year is the year of windows 8. It will be everywhere. You like it or not. But im sure everybody will upgrade to it :p

[PGHammer]

Last I saw Apple was still having record Mac sales quarters while the PC market was shrinking. Maybe I misunderstood.

Costing Apple in what way? Device sales? Revenue? Profit? Marketshare? Those seem like problems Microsoft is having right now in Mobile, not Apple.

I understand the difference well. In fact my entire point is that users don't care about APIs. They benefit indirectly from using a platform with a better developer ecosystem, but what a user sees is UI.

It sounds here like you're arguing exactly for my case. ARM is not a place for traditional legacy Windows apps. Why include the legacy desktop UI? Why give users the illusion that it's the same OS that they can run Photoshop on with their desktop PC when they can't actually do so?

That's all great. The full Windows on x86 platform can run all the apps. I applaud Microsoft for that. This is all further evidence though that ARM is a completely different platform than x86. Why include the desktop UI on ARM when it may serve to confuse that issue?

Different UIs for different interfaces can be a good thing. Microsoft clearly recognizes this. Remember back at CES 2010 when they argued that the traditional Windows 7 Desktop was a perfectly good touch interface? Seems like they've changed their position since then.

How would removing the desktop UI from ARM devices complicate this multiple UI issue you describe? There would still only be two UIs on Windows devices, Metro/Immersive which is available on both ARM and x86, and Desktop which is the realm of x86 only.

Being able to transition up the product line is nice. I don't think Apple cares about this so much. They see the iPad eventually replacing the entire Mac market except for niche developers. The future is that the legacy desktop becomes the niche.

It seems to me that the only reason the Microsoft is including the desktop in WOA is as a stopgap.

My point is that making the UIs exactly the same (Metro + Desktop on both ARM and x86) is confusing to users because ARM and x86 are not the same. You make that point very well yourself. If ARM and x86 are not the same, and cannot and should not run the same apps, then why go for the illusion of making them look the same? I'm speaking specifically about the Desktop UI. Having Metro as a unified UI across all Windows devices is a good move, and it makes sense to the user. Every Windows device with the Immersive Metro interface (all of them come Windows 8) can run all Metro/Immersive software.

Apple customers are buying iPad2s *instead* of traditional Macs (especially MacBooks) - how much does Apple make on each? (True - as you put it, CEO Tim Cook apparently doesn't care. And what do you think will happen when that sinks in to the Apple userbase - especially the Mac userbase?)

If anything, the risk Apple is taking is far bigger than the one Microsoft is taking.

And I simply said that WOA can't run Win32 applications - because that particular API is, point of fact, not included with WOA. API lack - not UI difference.

Any attempt to even *run* a Win32 application on WOA will fail.

More critically, Windows 8 for x86/64 will *not* include Office 15 as shown on WOA - it will almost certainly, where preloaded, include a version of Office 2010 instead.

[PGHammer]

thats a very good point.

You will be seeing Win8 from netbooks to AIO PCs.

and ARM devices from superthin tablets to even high def 7inch ones.

Meaning. WOA will have massive value to users and developers alike. As they will only have to develop for WinRT to get across the whole reach of Windows. From x86 to WOA. Whereas users will enjoy these apps regardless if they own WOA or x86.

That is a big big plus for both the developers and the consumers. Oh and also MS ( 30% on apps ) :p so everybody wins.

We should all be really happy that a company is so bold and confident to actually take this difficult step.

Apple wont dare do this. Look at how iOS is totally touch oriented. Mobile like multitasking.

I dont know much about Android but i know this much ICS can never match Windows :p

so MS can win big here. I hope. Just hope they dont screw up marketing and dont let ppl who gave bad name to Vista do it again to windows 8.

I downloaded Vista beta 2 and used that as my primary OS and then Vista. Then SP1 and i never had any problems. I didnt even have latest hardware. So it was all bull.... Vista was great for me. Never had a virus since. or any other hack. so i was really happy with it.

Sometimes you have to educate the market and i am sure MS will make sure ppl know what are the limitations of a WOA device. (we never know if AMD or Intels next x86 chips are super fast and super efficient we might even see slim tablets in those form aswell).

So the next year is the year of windows 8. It will be everywhere. You like it or not. But im sure everybody will upgrade to it :p

I can give two examples of devices designed more for Windows 8 (though both are running Windows 7 today).

The first is the *blushingly obvious* Samsung Series 7 power slate - the other is the first Ultrabook to ship - the HP Folio.

Like the Series 7 power slate, it's driven by a mobile Core i5; basically Sandy Bridge-M.

While both are pricier than the upcoming ARM competitors, the value-add each has is wider application compatibility (especially backward compatibility) - no WOA device has that.

The Folio 13 in Quick-Ship configuration - http://www.shopping.hp.com/product/computers/notebooks/folio13_series/rts/4/computer_store/A7A89UA%2523ABA

[simplezz]

I believe that .Net apps will work.

From what I understand of it, only WinRT/Metro apps installed from the Windows App Store will work. So unless Microsoft provides some special glue, I don't see how how prewritten .net apps will work on WOA.

It all sounds pretty messy to me. Microsoft should either go all out Metro on ARM and do away with the desktop UI completely, or allow all third party desktop apps to run. The middle ground in this case is going to alienate software vendors and developers.

[Stetson]

And you are basically assuming that the *entire* low-end userbase is, in fact, that stupid.

Tell me - why has ANY attempt to put Windows on low-end hardware (even as a niche) failed? (I'm referring to Tablet PC Edition in particular.)

Could it be that the UI was, in fact, too different?

All the Windows Tablets I've seen before have looked much more like tradition Windows than the Metro/Immersive UI that Microsoft is pushing now.

You are thinking that different architectures should have not just different APIs, but different UIs as well. How well has that worked for Android?

I do not think that they should have different APIs necessarily nor different UIs necessarily. I said specifically that I think cross-platform Metro/Immersive apps on both ARM and x86/64 is great.

I think that WOA should not have a desktop interface when you can't really use it like a full Windows desktop.

WOA is designed as an alternative to Windows 8 - where battery life and extreme portability are more important than backward-compatibility. The UI commonality is designed to eliminate transition issues - let alone transition fatigue.

Agreed. I do not think WOA should have backwards compatibility. I think that including the desktop confuses the issue. Having the unified Metro interface when moving from an ARM device to an x86 device is good. Why run the Aero composited multi-window desktop on a device "where battery life and extreme portability are more important than backward-compatibility"?

And if Apple truly intends to get out of producing Macs, the userbase (which has been, until now, rabidly loyal) will feel decidedly screwed over.

I don't think that they will forcibly get out of the Mac market, if they ever even do get out of the Mac market. What I think is that they are prepared for mobile devices to take over as PCs for most users. (PC in the sense of Personal Computer, not the specific device category).

And you are completely ignoring ARM on netbooks. No touch support. A standard keyboard and pointing device (such as a touchpad or TrackPoint device) - not necessarily a mouse.

And what are you going to do with a Desktop interface on an ARM netbook? Manage files and use Office? What else? Calculator? Paint? Minesweeper?

Obviously Microsoft thinks that Metro/Immersive is great on non-touchscreen devices too, considering that they're building it in to all versions of Windows 8 and making it an integral part of the experience even on non-touch devices.

If anything, WOA netbooks will be the anti-iDevice. A familiar user interface. A real keyboard. Smaller, but similar, versions of well-known applications. No transition issues from ARM/WOA to Windows 8 on x86/64. All for the same price (if not less) than iPad2, and priced similarly to Android devices of the same formfactor. (And there are exactly zero official Android netbooks today.)

Yes it will have a familar user interface (Until you go to use the start menu that is), but the things that you can do in that familiar interface are extremely limited. Browse files and user Office. That's basically it. Everything else and you get dumped into the Metro/Immersive UI.

Is the familiarity of the Desktop UI (which by the way has no visible start button, and of course no apps except the built in ones) worth the confusion of it not really being a fully capable desktop Windows environment?

Besides it hardly looks familar except to someone who has used Windows 7. It doesn't look at all like XP and earlier. The only thing familiar basically is the draggable title bars and the min, max, and close buttons.

[efjay]

Metro tablets run Metro Apps.

Metro netbooks run Metro Apps.

Windows tablets run Metro and Windows Apps.

Windows notebooks run Metro and Windows Apps.

Makes sense to me. Dont give the impression that WOA has the same desktop as your previous version of Windows, invariably someone will try to install an older program and will be disappointed when it fails. Call them Metro tablets powered by Windows 8 with Metro apps and make it clear thats all they will run. Anything else, get a Windows 8 tablet/slate/whatever.

[Zain Adeel]

the only reason im interested in Samsung SSS is that it has a digitizer. But the low battery life is a bummer.

So my guess is people will initially buy Win8 ultrabooks and ARM tablets. Next year when batteries improve and intel and AMD comes up with better faster and smaller more efficient x86 processors we will see good sales in x86 tablets.

People are gonna be turned off with small battery x86 tablets thats why MS needs to explain why they let go porting on WOA. So people dont skip it thinking its not the full windows 8 experience.

[PGHammer]

All the Windows Tablets I've seen before have looked much more like tradition Windows than the Metro/Immersive UI that Microsoft is pushing now.

I do not think that they should have different APIs necessarily nor different UIs necessarily. I said specifically that I think cross-platform Metro/Immersive apps on both ARM and x86/64 is great.

I think that WOA should not have a desktop interface when you can't really use it like a full Windows desktop.

Agreed. I do not think WOA should have backwards compatibility. I think that including the desktop confuses the issue. Having the unified Metro interface when moving from an ARM device to an x86 device is good. Why run the Aero composited multi-window desktop on a device "where battery life and extreme portability are more important than backward-compatibility"?

I don't think that they will forcibly get out of the Mac market, if they ever even do get out of the Mac market. What I think is that they are prepared for mobile devices to take over as PCs for most users. (PC in the sense of Personal Computer, not the specific device category).

And what are you going to do with a Desktop interface on an ARM netbook? Manage files and use Office? What else? Calculator? Paint? Minesweeper?

Obviously Microsoft thinks that Metro/Immersive is great on non-touchscreen devices too, considering that they're building it in to all versions of Windows 8 and making it an integral part of the experience even on non-touch devices.

Yes it will have a familar user interface (Until you go to use the start menu that is), but the things that you can do in that familiar interface are extremely limited. Browse files and user Office. That's basically it. Everything else and you get dumped into the Metro/Immersive UI.

Is the familiarity of the Desktop UI (which by the way has no visible start button, and of course no apps except the built in ones) worth the confusion of it not really being a fully capable desktop Windows environment?

Besides it hardly looks familar except to someone who has used Windows 7. It doesn't look at all like XP and earlier. The only thing familiar basically is the draggable title bars and the min, max, and close buttons.

And have you, in fact, used even the Windows Developer P

All the Windows Tablets I've seen before have looked much more like tradition Windows than the Metro/Immersive UI that Microsoft is pushing now.

I do not think that they should have different APIs necessarily nor different UIs necessarily. I said specifically that I think cross-platform Metro/Immersive apps on both ARM and x86/64 is great.

I think that WOA should not have a desktop interface when you can't really use it like a full Windows desktop.

Agreed. I do not think WOA should have backwards compatibility. I think that including the desktop confuses the issue. Having the unified Metro interface when moving from an ARM device to an x86 device is good. Why run the Aero composited multi-window desktop on a device "where battery life and extreme portability are more important than backward-compatibility"?

I don't think that they will forcibly get out of the Mac market, if they ever even do get out of the Mac market. What I think is that they are prepared for mobile devices to take over as PCs for most users. (PC in the sense of Personal Computer, not the specific device category).

And what are you going to do with a Desktop interface on an ARM netbook? Manage files and use Office? What else? Calculator? Paint? Minesweeper?

Obviously Microsoft thinks that Metro/Immersive is great on non-touchscreen devices too, considering that they're building it in to all versions of Windows 8 and making it an integral part of the experience even on non-touch devices.

Yes it will have a familar user interface (Until you go to use the start menu that is), but the things that you can do in that familiar interface are extremely limited. Browse files and user Office. That's basically it. Everything else and you get dumped into the Metro/Immersive UI.

Is the familiarity of the Desktop UI (which by the way has no visible start button, and of course no apps except the built in ones) worth the confusion of it not really being a fully capable desktop Windows environment?

Besides it hardly looks familar except to someone who has used Windows 7. It doesn't look at all like XP and earlier. The only thing familiar basically is the draggable title bars and the min, max, and close buttons.

r

All the Windows Tablets I've seen before have looked much more like tradition Windows than the Metro/Immersive UI that Microsoft is pushing now.

I do not think that they should have different APIs necessarily nor different UIs necessarily. I said specifically that I think cross-platform Metro/Immersive apps on both ARM and x86/64 is great.

I think that WOA should not have a desktop interface when you can't really use it like a full Windows desktop.

Agreed. I do not think WOA should have backwards compatibility. I think that including the desktop confuses the issue. Having the unified Metro interface when moving from an ARM device to an x86 device is good. Why run the Aero composited multi-window desktop on a device "where battery life and extreme portability are more important than backward-compatibility"?

I don't think that they will forcibly get out of the Mac market, if they ever even do get out of the Mac market. What I think is that they are prepared for mobile devices to take over as PCs for most users. (PC in the sense of Personal Computer, not the specific device category).

And what are you going to do with a Desktop interface on an ARM netbook? Manage files and use Office? What else? Calculator? Paint? Minesweeper?

Obviously Microsoft thinks that Metro/Immersive is great on non-touchscreen devices too, considering that they're building it in to all versions of Windows 8 and making it an integral part of the experience even on non-touch devices.

Yes it will have a familar user interface (Until you go to use the start menu that is), but the things that you can do in that familiar interface are extremely limited. Browse files and user Office. That's basically it. Everything else and you get dumped into the Metro/Immersive UI.

Is the familiarity of the Desktop UI (which by the way has no visible start button, and of course no apps except the built in ones) worth the confusion of it not really being a fully capable desktop Windows environment?

Besides it hardly looks familar except to someone who has used Windows 7. It doesn't look at all like XP and earlier. The only thing familiar basically is the draggable title bars and the min, max, and close buttons.

Have you even used the Developer Preview?

If you have, then you would notice that (on x86/x64) by and large traditional Win32 applications work just fine. (Productivity applications - such as the current version of the Office 2010 productivity suite. Most games - including MMORPGs. Etc. As centered as you are on the changes to the desktop menu, the applications that run on the desktop could basically care less. As long as the Win32 API is supported, by and large they will work as they always have. The API support - not the UI - is the difference between Windows 8 on x86/64 and WOA.)

That is also why there will be x86/64 tablets, slates, Ultrabooks, etc. - for those that need Win32 API support more than they need longer battery life. Actually, I would likely add an ARM-based *netbook* - not a tablet or slate - to my existing Windows 8-driven traditional desktop. Why a netbook, as opposed to a tablet or slate? Simply put - I loathe virtual keyboards - especially for text/data-entry. I have not found a single virtual keyboard - in any OS or Linux distribution - that I can stand. Hence a *netbook*. It will have the same UI as my desktop. Netbooks, tablets, and slates - for the majority of folks - are adjuncts to existing PCs. Because I *have* an existing PC - which *will* be running Windows 8 x64 RTM when it ships - I don't necessarily need another x64 (or even x32) portable. I won't be trying to do unsuitable tasks on a netbook.

[Stetson]

Have you even used the Developer Preview?

If you have, then you would notice that (on x86/x64) by and large traditional Win32 applications work just fine. (Productivity applications - such as the current version of the Office 2010 productivity suite. Most games - including MMORPGs. Etc. As centered as you are on the changes to the desktop menu, the applications that run on the desktop could basically care less. As long as the Win32 API is supported, by and large they will work as they always have. The API support - not the UI - is the difference between Windows 8 on x86/64 and WOA.)

That is also why there will be x86/64 tablets, slates, Ultrabooks, etc. - for those that need Win32 API support more than they need longer battery life. Actually, I would likely add an ARM-based *netbook* - not a tablet or slate - to my existing Windows 8-driven traditional desktop. Why a netbook, as opposed to a tablet or slate? Simply put - I loathe virtual keyboards - especially for text/data-entry. I have not found a single virtual keyboard - in any OS or Linux distribution - that I can stand. Hence a *netbook*. It will have the same UI as my desktop. Netbooks, tablets, and slates - for the majority of folks - are adjuncts to existing PCs. Because I *have* an existing PC - which *will* be running Windows 8 x64 RTM when it ships - I don't necessarily need another x64 (or even x32) portable. I won't be trying to do unsuitable tasks on a netbook.

Sorry if I wasn't clear, I was speaking mostly about WOA when talking about limitations. I believe it has been made clear by Microsoft that the only apps for WOA that can run in the desktop are the included apps (which includes some, but not all, of the Office suite). I think that a WOA netbook makes a lot of sense for the reason you stated, but why does Office for WOA need to be a desktop app for you to get full use out of the physical keyboard?

I understand that the main difference below the surface is an API difference. WOA runs WinRT apps, Winx86/64 runs WinRT and Win32 apps. Got it.

What I am proposing is that this be made clear to the user in UI decisions. It is extremely clear when using the Metro/Immersive UI that this is new software and a different ecosystem. This is an important message to communicate to users. I don't think many people are confused that an iPad can't run Mac apps. I think there is potential confusion with WOA if it includes a desktop interface but does not run Win32 apps.

Not that people are stupid, but that most people use technology as a tool to get things done. They do not know nor do they care what Win32 and WinRT are. They do not know nor do they care what ARM and x86 are. They know what Windows desktop apps look like, and with little exception the Windows desktop has had very high application compatibility and legacy support up until WOA.

I just think that the UI is an easy way to communicate to the user the underlying differences in the platforms without having to go into technical details. By including the desktop UI in WOA you have to find a way to communicate the difference in processors and in APIs in a clear way. I think it would be better to avoid that altogether.

[PGHammer]

Sorry if I wasn't clear, I was speaking mostly about WOA when talking about limitations. I believe it has been made clear by Microsoft that the only apps for WOA that can run in the desktop are the included apps (which includes some, but not all, of the Office suite). I think that a WOA netbook makes a lot of sense for the reason you stated, but why does Office for WOA need to be a desktop app for you to get full use out of the physical keyboard?

I understand that the main difference below the surface is an API difference. WOA runs WinRT apps, Winx86/64 runs WinRT and Win32 apps. Got it.

What I am proposing is that this be made clear to the user in UI decisions. It is extremely clear when using the Metro/Immersive UI that this is new software and a different ecosystem. This is an important message to communicate to users. I don't think many people are confused that an iPad can't run Mac apps. I think there is potential confusion with WOA if it includes a desktop interface but does not run Win32 apps.

Not that people are stupid, but that most people use technology as a tool to get things done. They do not know nor do they care what Win32 and WinRT are. They do not know nor do they care what ARM and x86 are. They know what Windows desktop apps look like, and with little exception the Windows desktop has had very high application compatibility and legacy support up until WOA.

I just think that the UI is an easy way to communicate to the user the underlying differences in the platforms without having to go into technical details. By including the desktop UI in WOA you have to find a way to communicate the difference in processors and in APIs in a clear way. I think it would be better to avoid that altogether.

Deliberately-different UIs are a sign of either fork-dom (Android) or niche-dom (iOS), and users are speaking up loud and clear - they would rather not.

You are basically seeking to preserve the *existing* Windows UI exactly as it is - no *unified UI* for you.

[Stetson]

Deliberately-different UIs are a sign of either fork-dom (Android) or niche-dom (iOS), and users are speaking up loud and clear - they would rather not.

You are basically seeking to preserve the *existing* Windows UI exactly as it is - no *unified UI* for you.

But Microsoft already has deliberately different UIs with Windows 8. They're the Immersive UI and the Desktop UI.

I do not wish to preserve the existing Windows UI. I suggest that Windows 8 on x86/64 ship exactly as planned, which includes the new, unified, Metro/Immersive UI, as well as the standard Desktop UI for Win32 apps. My only concern is including the Legacy Desktop UI in WOA.

My suggestion would still result in a unified Immersive UI across all Windows devices, with an underlying unified WinRT API.

WOA cannot and should not run Win32 apps. You argued this well yourself. If you can't run Win32 apps, why have a desktop UI? Nobody can develop apps for the desktop UI on WOA anyway, they will only be allowed to develop Metro/Immsersive apps according to Microsoft.

[Zain Adeel]

But Microsoft already has deliberately different UIs with Windows 8. They're the Immersive UI and the Desktop UI.

I do not wish to preserve the existing Windows UI. I suggest that Windows 8 on x86/64 ship exactly as planned, which includes the new, unified, Metro/Immersive UI, as well as the standard Desktop UI for Win32 apps. My only concern is including the Legacy Desktop UI in WOA.

My suggestion would still result in a unified Immersive UI across all Windows devices, with an underlying unified WinRT API.

WOA cannot and should not run Win32 apps. You argued this well yourself. If you can't run Win32 apps, why have a desktop UI? Nobody can develop apps for the desktop UI on WOA anyway, they will only be allowed to develop Metro/Immsersive apps according to Microsoft.

the desktop is to use Office or IE10 and the file manager. Dont know about you. But my biggest grip with Metro or WP7 is that i love file managers that allow me to create folders. I hate working with libraries or tagging pictures and stuff. I keep everything perfectly organized by creating folders for each thing.

So atleast it will allow me to keep my data like i like it even on WOA device

[Stetson]

the desktop is to use Office or IE10 and the file manager. Dont know about you. But my biggest grip with Metro or WP7 is that i love file managers that allow me to create folders. I hate working with libraries or tagging pictures and stuff. I keep everything perfectly organized by creating folders for each thing.

So atleast it will allow me to keep my data like i like it even on WOA device

I don't see why they couldn't build a really nice Metro file manager. My guess is that the desktop on ARM is a stopgap that will be gone with the next major version of Windows on ARM, instead replaced with a pure Metro Explorer and Office suite.

[Glassed Silver]

[...] To that end, Windows 8 on ARM ("WOA") [...]

Source: OP's linked article

I see what they did there....

Avoiding WOARM! :p

Glassed Silver:mac