Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 8th Jan 2013 23:27 UTC
Windows 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.
Order by: Score:
Nice
by vaette on Tue 8th Jan 2013 23:42 UTC
vaette
Member since:
2008-08-09

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.

Reply Score: 5

x86
by arb1 on Tue 8th Jan 2013 23:49 UTC
arb1
Member since:
2011-08-19

"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.

Reply Score: 4

RE: x86
by Lennie on Wed 9th Jan 2013 00:52 UTC in reply to "x86"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

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.

Reply Score: 6

RE: x86
by viton on Thu 10th Jan 2013 00:24 UTC in reply to "x86"
viton Member since:
2005-08-09

There'are people who can create fast x86 emulator (and some are already doing that),
Microsoft just need to get out of their way.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: x86
by WereCatf on Thu 10th Jan 2013 00:39 UTC in reply to "RE: x86"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

There'are people who can create fast x86 emulator (and some are already doing that)


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.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: x86
by viton on Thu 10th Jan 2013 01:22 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: x86"
viton Member since:
2005-08-09

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.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: x86
by WereCatf on Thu 10th Jan 2013 01:29 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: x86"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

No. I'm talking about process-level emulator, not the OS.
There is zero sense in full-system emulator. Full win32 is here already.


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.

Anyway, Elbrus Technologies for example, aims for 80% emulation effeciency, but they're targeting enterprise market.


Snake-oil.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: x86
by Alfman on Thu 10th Jan 2013 02:10 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: x86"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

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.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: x86
by WereCatf on Thu 10th Jan 2013 02:50 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: x86"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Most code doesn't self modify


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.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: x86
by Alfman on Thu 10th Jan 2013 07:29 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: x86"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

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.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: x86
by zlynx on Thu 10th Jan 2013 19:27 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: x86"
zlynx Member since:
2005-07-20

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.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: x86
by Alfman on Thu 10th Jan 2013 20:42 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: x86"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

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

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: x86
by viton on Thu 10th Jan 2013 21:56 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: x86"
viton Member since:
2005-08-09

So, basically you want Wine with machine-code translation.

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.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by saso
by saso on Wed 9th Jan 2013 00:18 UTC
saso
Member since:
2007-04-18

A Windows that can't run x86 code, but only Metro applications, is a safe Windows.

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.

Reply Score: 12

RE: Comment by saso
by judgen on Wed 9th Jan 2013 01:31 UTC in reply to "Comment by saso"
judgen Member since:
2006-07-12

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.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by saso
by Drumhellar on Wed 9th Jan 2013 02:04 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by saso"
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

Which phone do you have? I have the Lumia 710 and it is pretty solid.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by saso
by Nelson on Wed 9th Jan 2013 05:51 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by saso"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

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.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by saso
by Drumhellar on Wed 9th Jan 2013 02:03 UTC in reply to "Comment by saso"
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

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.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by saso
by tylerdurden on Wed 9th Jan 2013 07:05 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by saso"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

Microsoft has a three good things going for it that Apple (and Android) doesn't: OEM relationships in the PC space, Enterprise support/integration in the PC space, and size in the PC space.


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

Reply Score: 6

RE[3]: Comment by saso
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Wed 9th Jan 2013 15:29 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by saso"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

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.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by saso
by Drumhellar on Wed 9th Jan 2013 21:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by saso"
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

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.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by saso
by saso on Wed 9th Jan 2013 14:59 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by saso"
saso Member since:
2007-04-18

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.

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.

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.

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.

Second, there are these little things called Roadmaps that Microsoft makes easily available.

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. ;)

Windows RT has tight integration with existing management tools that come with Windows Server.

Care to provide references? I'm not aware of any.

Equivalent tools for iPads and Android tools just aren't as good in Windows-centric environment.

Both iOS and Android have full ActiveSync support with remote policy management, remote wipe, etc. What tools does Windows RT have more?

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.

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.

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.

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".

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by saso
by Lennie on Wed 9th Jan 2013 22:55 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by saso"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

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.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by saso
by WorknMan on Wed 9th Jan 2013 02:03 UTC in reply to "Comment by saso"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

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).


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

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by saso
by Morgan on Wed 9th Jan 2013 05:38 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by saso"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

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 ;)



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.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by saso
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Wed 9th Jan 2013 15:33 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by saso"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

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.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by saso
by Morgan on Wed 9th Jan 2013 16:37 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by saso"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

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.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by saso
by saso on Wed 9th Jan 2013 22:43 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by saso"
saso Member since:
2007-04-18

For me, the potential for running the same apps on desktop and tablet (and hopefully phone in the future) holds a lot of appeal.

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.

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.

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).

I wish I had this same functionality for all of my phone and tablet apps.

On Android 4.2 you do, for both phones and tablets.

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.

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.

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 ;)

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?

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Comment by saso
by WorknMan on Thu 10th Jan 2013 00:17 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by saso"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

For me, the potential for running the same apps on desktop and tablet (and hopefully phone in the future) holds a lot of appeal.

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.


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.

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.


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

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by saso
by WereCatf on Thu 10th Jan 2013 00:36 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by saso"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

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.


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.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by saso
by HappyGod on Wed 9th Jan 2013 05:11 UTC in reply to "Comment by saso"
HappyGod Member since:
2005-10-19

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).


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! :-)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by saso
by WereCatf on Wed 9th Jan 2013 05:31 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by saso"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

the whole same-experience-on-all-platforms thing.


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.

Reply Score: 7

RE[3]: Comment by saso
by Nelson on Wed 9th Jan 2013 05:49 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by saso"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

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.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by saso
by WereCatf on Wed 9th Jan 2013 08:41 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by saso"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

I think that times are changing. The mouse will augment the touch experience instead of touch augmenting the mouse experience, in pretty short order.


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.

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.


One can only hope so, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Reply Score: 6

RE[5]: Comment by saso
by Nelson on Wed 9th Jan 2013 09:53 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by saso"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29


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.


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.


One can only hope so, but I wouldn't hold my breath.


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.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by saso
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 9th Jan 2013 10:01 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by saso"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

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.

Reply Score: 4

RE[7]: Comment by saso
by BluenoseJake on Wed 9th Jan 2013 10:27 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by saso"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

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.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Comment by saso
by Nelson on Wed 9th Jan 2013 17:16 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by saso"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

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.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by saso
by WereCatf on Wed 9th Jan 2013 12:06 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by saso"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

I have absolutely no issue using my Surface


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.

Reply Score: 4

RE[7]: Comment by saso
by Nelson on Wed 9th Jan 2013 17:23 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by saso"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29


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.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by saso
by mistersoft on Wed 9th Jan 2013 16:40 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by saso"
mistersoft Member since:
2011-01-05

. The mouse will augment the touch experience instead of touch augmenting the mouse experience, in pretty short order.


..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*

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by saso
by Nelson on Wed 9th Jan 2013 17:27 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by saso"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29


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.


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.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by saso
by HappyGod on Wed 9th Jan 2013 11:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by saso"
HappyGod Member since:
2005-10-19

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.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by saso
by Sodki on Wed 9th Jan 2013 09:24 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by saso"
Sodki Member since:
2005-11-10

"But if you're not going to be running existing Windows software, what exactly is the selling point of Windows then?


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.
"

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.

Reply Score: 6

RE[3]: Comment by saso
by HappyGod on Wed 9th Jan 2013 11:10 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by saso"
HappyGod Member since:
2005-10-19

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.


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.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by saso
by Sodki on Wed 9th Jan 2013 11:26 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by saso"
Sodki Member since:
2005-11-10

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.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Comment by saso
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 9th Jan 2013 11:31 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by saso"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

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.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by saso
by saso on Wed 9th Jan 2013 14:40 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by saso"
saso Member since:
2007-04-18

1. Firstly, and most importantly; Microsoft Office. Corporate users live and breathe MS Office.

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.

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.

Future, unannounced and speculated about products aren't valid reasons to purchase a computer now, are they?

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.

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).

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.

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 no, I don't work for Microsoft! :-)

And I totally believe you.. ;) (just kidding)

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Comment by saso
by HappyGod on Wed 9th Jan 2013 23:35 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by saso"
HappyGod Member since:
2005-10-19

Future, unannounced and speculated about products aren't valid reasons to purchase a computer now, are they?


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.

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).


Future, unannounced and speculated about products aren't valid reasons to purchase a computer now, are they?

This is all great, but it's subjective and it's not something that will force users to do a platform and ecosystem change.


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

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by saso
by saso on Thu 10th Jan 2013 01:32 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by saso"
saso Member since:
2007-04-18

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.

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.

"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).

Future, unannounced and speculated about products aren't valid reasons to purchase a computer now, are they?
"
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.

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

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.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Comment by saso
by Deviate_X on Wed 9th Jan 2013 19:21 UTC in reply to "Comment by saso"
Deviate_X Member since:
2005-07-11

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

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by saso
by saso on Wed 9th Jan 2013 22:27 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by saso"
saso Member since:
2007-04-18

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.

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.

So i would not recommend Android to anyone who (needed) to ask about what tablet to get.

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...

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by saso
by tylerdurden on Thu 10th Jan 2013 08:17 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by saso"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

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

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by saso
by ze_jerkface on Fri 11th Jan 2013 08:12 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by saso"
ze_jerkface Member since:
2012-06-22

On the other hand, the problem with Surface is the high price. Microsoft seen as missing in action at the $200 level.


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.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by saso
by Deviate_X on Sat 12th Jan 2013 13:10 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by saso"
Deviate_X Member since:
2005-07-11

"On the other hand, the problem with Surface is the high price. Microsoft seen as missing in action at the $200 level.


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

Reply Score: 2

Comment by lucas_maximus
by lucas_maximus on Wed 9th Jan 2013 14:22 UTC
lucas_maximus
Member since:
2009-08-18

It is hardly a jailbreak.

Once the device is rebooted it can't run the code.

Edited 2013-01-09 14:23 UTC

Reply Score: 2