Submitted by The Eee Pad, announced at Computex recently, was to be Asus’ first foray into the tablet market, running Windows 7 and coming in both a 10 inch and 12 inch versions. The latests rumors, according to German site NetbookNews.de, state the Asus may be dropping Windows 7 in favor of a custom version of Android. With HP dropping their Windows tablet project some months back, and now Asus backing out of their plans, is there any hope for Windows to take hold in the tablet market?
The author confuses Windows 7 and Windows Compact Edition 7, which are totally different.
And 3 people give thumbs up on it! Seriously David wrote it totally WRONG! Whole news is about EP101tc which is the 10 inch model that has ARM and its coming with Android now rather than Windows Embedded Compact 7. 12 inch model is called EP121 and it has x86 processor and it is still coming with Windows 7!
http://culvpc.com/asus-ep121-and-ep101tc/
I agree, there is widespread confusion on this issue. Windows 7 runs on X86 architecture ONLY. ARM processors require Windows Compact which is a completely different OS having quite limited capability compared to the full Windows 7 and perhaps even Android.
Intel of course is feverishly creating low power X86 chips but presumably will always lag behind the much simpler ARM chips. On the other hand for many configurations the CPU power consumption is not the dominant factor in limiting battery life.
The native lack of touch is a non issue for Windows 7. Any serious Windows 7 tablet OEM will be providing his own shell anyway. Note that every airport check-in kiosk I’ve seen uses XP with a reasonable touch interface.
We’ll never know. Intel has shown some pretty wicked dynamic power management on Moorestown:
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2010/05/intel-fires-opening-sal…
Windows biggest hindrance to the tablet market is that they’re trying to squeeze a mouse-based UI into a touch/tablet profile.
The iPad and now Android have shown that people want touch UIs and apps built from the ground up as touch UIs and apps. What Windows has done for years is take their old apps, put it on a single-touch screen, and add a stylus. It made sense, because they could leverage their money making apps like Office. However, a stylus used as a replacement for a mouse is awkward compared to touch. So they need to create new apps, a new SDK on top of that, and a new interface.
Windows 7 has a great multi-touch support. Plus, the Silverlight/WPF UI design is a breeze.
Windows 7 isn’t a touch OS. It’s a mouse OS, and to get it to be touch worthy they have to put skins on top of existing apps and other awkward workarounds that vary widely in quality. HP has a few things here and there that look nice, but it’s still a Windows desktop with skins and/or a stylus. Try to use Microsoft Office with a multi-touch interface.
And the apps, I don’t know of any killer touch apps for Windows 7, while there are plenty for the various smartphones and iPad.
Microsoft finally got it with Windows Mobile 7, that they need a ground-up touch interface rather than skinning a mouse/stylus driven Windows Mobile 6.x.
And also, Courier ironically was exactly what Microsoft needed. Such as shame.
Seriously? You make it sound as if the iPad came out way before the Android OS. Perhaps you meant to say “the iOS and now Android”, which would make more sense.
Anyway, I agree completely with you that Microsoft just doesn’t “get” touch interfaces. Apple and Google are leading the pack here, and I think they will do so for a very long time.
Well, considering iPad is based on the iPhone OS which came out before Android (Android had been in the works for a while, but changed dramatically after iPhoneOS was released), and iPad sales are through the roof while Android tablets while promising, are still in their infancy.
That reasoning doesn’t look valid. Why don’t you just admit he’s right that you made a mistake and confused iPad with the iphone OS or that you mixed apples and oranges? “now” has never meant anything related to sales volumes.
YOU said
… so you have no point in your post-post rationalizing.
There is no confusing the iPhone OS with the iPad OS, because they both run slightly different versions of iOS. The reasoning is definitely valid.
There was no “OS” in what he wrote. Apple may have chosen to call the OS that the iPad runs “iPad OS”. I genuinely thought the iPad was running the same OS as the iPhone, and that this OS was named “iPhoneOS”. In case that’s incorrect, then mea culpa, I had never heard or read about “iPad OS” anywhere.
Had he used “OS” somewhere close to “iPad”, he would have been correct. That’s why Morgan replaced his “The iPad and now Android” with “The iOS and now Android”. Yet, @tony basically denied having mixed a device and an OS in a comparison as to age or precedence. Which, in my eyes was, and still is, so obvious. That’s the basis for my previous reply. By writing “Well, considering iPad is based on the iPhone OS which came out before Android“, he’s taking the confusion further by making things look like the iPad was an operating system. Isn’t it a device?
Let’s call it a day, shall we?
You really didn’t pull meaning from his statement that he was referring to operating systems on these devices? Really?
I thought it was pretty clear.
iPhone and iPad both run iOS. iPhone (versions 3G and up to 4) along with iPod touch (2nd and 3rd gen) can run up to iOS 4.0. The iPad runs iOS 3.2, and it’s a little different due to the size, but operates in a nearly identical manner. In other words, if you can use an iPhone, you can use an iPad.
Basically the problem I have is you’re taking something that you and the Morgan for some reason didn’t pull from the comments, and beating @tony over the head with it, even though A. it was obvious to me what @tony meant, and certainly must have been to others judging by the lack of extra comments from anyone except you and Morgan, and B. derailing the subject matter down the rabbit whole of pointless discussion.
So are we done? Sure, we’re done.
Wow. My intention was not to beat anyone over the head with anything, and in fact I agreed with the post in general (something everyone seems to ignore). My point in my first paragraph was simply that I thought he might have been thinking “iOS” and typed “iPad” instead because of the subject matter of the article. It was never meant as a slight, more as an observation.
Sorry I touched such a nerve in everyone.
Interfaces and user experience, never seemed to be a great point with Microsoft.
It appears that the early demise of an HP Tablet running Windows 7 is definitely premature:
http://vista.blorge.com/2010/07/21/windows-7-hp-tablet-may-not-be-d…
http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/20/hp-slate-500-surfaces-on-hps-sit…
Here is an even more definitive link, claiming HP has stated that both Win7 and WebOS tablets will be released:
http://www.gadgetorama.com/news/news_details.php?gorid=6288/
The Win7 (Slate) tablets will be geared toward corporate use; my guess is that the WebOS tablets will be geared toward the consumer market.
win7 may support multi touch but it feels like a back seat passenger. Sure there is an sdk for writing good multi touch apps but most win 7 devices i have seen people use ordinary keyboards and mouses to start the mult touch applications.
So multitouch works great if you want to run one application in a kiosk mode or have a multi touch launcher that starts only mt apps. but controlling standard win7 with only a touch screen now that is not a good experience, i would go as far and say that it is horrible.
My experience has been almost the exact opposite. The OS works well for multitouch (though I have a tm2, this isn’t my video).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBtEhQqS1dw
It’s applications not designed with touch in mind that may not work so well. The OS accomodates where possible (apps that use common controls get the basics for free). Layout of the app UI is probably the most significant consideration, though again, if the app uses standard controls, the OS can adjust size/spacing in many cases.
As mentioned earlier in the thread, it doesn’t take any additional effort to create great touch-friendly apps on Windows than on other platforms. Use WPF/Silverlight and you get touch support for free. Mind your layout as you would in creating a touch-optimized app for any other platform, and you’re done. With Silverlight on WP7, Symbian, and possibly other devices, it would be pretty easy to port from those devices to Windows (and vice-versa).
Devices embedding a CPU not x86 will not run a Windows 7 ES.
Now if you are talking about Windows CE, version 7 is coming “soon” (Currently V6.0).
And yes it is running on ARM, x86 or MIPS.
And from my experiences, the support of the editor is very poor on the long run. From time to time less than 2 years for some releases.
I understand the hardware vendor who have much hesitation.
Windows tablets have been around for years and haven’t sold well, mainly because the interface just isn’t designed for tablet use.
The iPad has proved that, combined with a suitable interface, a tablet is usable and can succeed so now everyone else wants to build a competitor, and the only os thats designed for touchscreens and available to anyone is android.
TabletPCs have never really been aimed at the consumer market. Usually OEMs would spec them with lower-powered CPUs and basic GPUs, then price them at a premium (Hello, Dell.) This hampers adoption for many people who want would otherwise buy one, but would rather have something they can use for gaming as well, and/or feel the asking price is too high vs. a standard laptop with a better CPU/GPU.
They also haven’t been advertised anywhere near as much as standard laptops, so many people don’t know they even exist. Nor have they attempted integrating the functionality across their line so it’s just another standard feature (as was MS’ intent).
The same thing happened with Origami devices which had limited OEM adoption, no advertising, and pricing starting about $300 above Microsoft’s suggested target.
It’s only been in the last 5 years or so that there’s been some effort by OEMs to make TabletPCs targeted at consumers. Gateway has had a few nicely speced models (and one TV ad). Their latest model never made it to the US, though. Fujitsu’s 3/4/5410 models are pretty good (though still somewhat expensive for Intel GPU). HP, with the TX2 and the tm2 (which I’m posting this with) has made the best effort so far, providing a good CPU/GPU combination at pretty good pricing.
Some of the Atom-based TabletPCs coming online could also be good for that market if pricing is kept in line. The ExoPC looks good. HP’s slate, unfortunately, is now targeting enterprises, which isn’t a big deal alone, but will probably raise the asking price. If pricing is good, it could get many more people using TabletPCs after using them at work. It’s also unfortunate that Intel’s pricing for Atom makes it undesirable/expensive for OEMs to mate it with a non-Intel GPU, but it’s less of an issue for this market and it similarly affects all atom-based machines, not just tablets.
Check out this $30 tablet (from slashdot):
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/07/23/1338249
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGEDizaWX0k
They would design a tablet based around Windows Phone 7, which is designed to be a touch interface, and would actually work well in this capacity and be competitive.
I’ve used Windows 7 on a tablet. Yes, it supports multitouch. However it’s still a crap OS for a tablet. There is something different about using an iPad vs. a regular tablet running a desktop-based OS. The touch nature of it feels more intuitive for something you hold like a……tablet. Or slate, or whatever you want to call it. Using a stylus has never felt natural on a computer with the obvious exception of art stuff. Other than that, for navigational purposes it sucks. All in my humble opinion, of course.