TR Forums

I find it interesting that they demoed this using touch (and not a mouse).

The switch between Windows 8 apps and Windows 7 apps is rather jarring (near the end of the video).

Video: http://goo.gl/apPp8

Full post: http://goo.gl/hd4b9

This is also very unrefined and not consumer ready.

Jon wrote:

This is also very unrefined

That applies to every version of Windows.

End User wrote:

Jon wrote:

This is also very unrefined

That applies to every version of Windows.

That applies to all software.

Jon wrote:

This is also very unrefined and not consumer ready.

Yeah it looks REALLY rough....

Ergh, I know it's still in it's early stages, but I dont like what I see. The BBC has an article up on it:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-13627037

Can that interface be turned off? I mean, just look at it... I'm not a fan of over-simplistic interfaces and the general dumbing down of things. There should be a clear destinction between Desktop OS and the one to be used on a handheld...

The video also shows an "app store" - I shudder at the thought of such a thing. Windows moves slowly closer to OSX...

Microsoft continues to prove how off base they are with respect to mobile computing.

I'm sure this will be fine for desktops, as you can switch back to the more traditional windows UI. But why on earth did they think it was a good idea to build a tablet UI on top of a desktop version of windows? Tablets are more like smartphones than full blown desktops. So why not extend the phone OS to accommodate tablets, like every other sensible company is doing. It all just screams laziness and lack of vision to me. Also, I don't think users want the windows version of office running on their 7-10 inch touch device with a 1GHz dual core ARM chip, no matter how "touch friendly" the buttons are. I imagine W8 will only serve to confuse consumers more, while bringing decades of baggage to a new platform.

I'll chalk this up as one more reason Steve Ballmer needs to quit.

rcs2k4 wrote:

The video also shows an "app store" - I shudder at the thought of such a thing. Windows moves slowly closer to OSX...

I like the idea of a central software management app. It is the norm under Ubuntu.

It is important that the app store model provides developers with a fair deal.

Under Mac OS X and Ubuntu you can install apps from alternate sources.

That's just the touch friendly interface (even if you can use a mouse with it, I doubt many will). As a big fan of WP7/Metro I'm looking forward to a tablet with that sort of setup (seriously, WP7 rocks, can't wait for Mango). However, I can't see it widely adopted on desktop/laptop, touchscreen or no... My hands will stay on my keyboard and mouse, thank you - I like my blood to actually circulate. Win7 nailed the start button/task bar concept - don't think Win8 will change that much - but it is still good to see Microsoft refining their touch inputs - they have sucked historically - and I'm really glad they are sticking with the slick Metro style to do it.

That's horrifying. Really.

Just like Unity, on a decent-sized monitor I'm going to hate this, but it'll be pretty decent for a phone or tablet.

It's depressingly like what happened to PC games when game makers started targeting consoles and then making crappy ports to Windows.

bthylafh wrote:

Just like Unity, on a decent-sized monitor I'm going to hate this, but it'll be pretty decent for a phone or tablet.

I'm running Unity on 12.1" netbook, a dual 24" rig and a 27" rig. It scales up very well.

Smartphone interface for desktop OS? Seriously WTF??!

I'm running Unity on 12.1" netbook, a dual 24" rig and a 27" rig. It scales up very well.

You are a sick and twisted individual, and your ancestry and personal habits are in doubt.

bthylafh wrote:

I'm running Unity on 12.1" netbook, a dual 24" rig and a 27" rig. It scales up very well.

You are a sick and twisted individual, and your ancestry and personal habits are in doubt.

This coming from a Model M user.

As a Model M user, I am a paragon of virtue.

Da_Boss wrote:

Microsoft continues to prove how off base they are with respect to mobile computing.

I'm sure this will be fine for desktops, as you can switch back to the more traditional windows UI. But why on earth did they think it was a good idea to build a tablet UI on top of a desktop version of windows? Tablets are more like smartphones than full blown desktops. So why not extend the phone OS to accommodate tablets, like every other sensible company is doing. It all just screams laziness and lack of vision to me. Also, I don't think users want the windows version of office running on their 7-10 inch touch device with a 1GHz dual core ARM chip, no matter how "touch friendly" the buttons are. I imagine W8 will only serve to confuse consumers more, while bringing decades of baggage to a new platform.

I'll chalk this up as one more reason Steve Ballmer needs to quit.

They've been selling tablets running full version of windows since XP and before, and up until 2 years ago had a virtual monopoly on tablets used in industry and medical, now the ipad comes out in 2009 and you think its a new idea? Suckling at the TV teets much?

I for one hate all the dumbed down tablets, while android provides more choice and functionality than iOS both PALE compared to a win7 tablet in the same price range. ipad2 64gb wifi/3g, can't do silverlight or flash web browsing, half of the apps not optimized for screen size, crappy cameras, dualcore mobile CPU, almost no RAM, only 2 years of maturity: $850.

Windows 7 tablet, same IPS screen, 320gb SSD, 2gb RAM, wifi/3G, 5mp/720p front camera, 2mp webcam, memory card slot(S), fully functional USB ports, dualcore laptop class processors, runs all desktop apps plus many tablet optimized apps, complete html5/flash/silverlight browsing with desktop class browsers, 10year+ platform support: $ 700-$1000 depending on bundle.

The ipad is an overgrown ipod, the windows tablet is a fully functional PC with the peripherals removed, you can hook it up to an RS232 port and run a diagnostic, connect a router by USB and flash a new firmware, surf the entire web, run much more graphically intense apps than an ipad can dream of, and actually replace and ipod, ipad, and laptop with it...

Sorry I just don't fall for the tripe of commercials telling me Apple invented the tablet when I've seen them around for most of my life running windows just fine, and having more features than the ipad for years before it came out.

WarriorProphet wrote:

Sorry I just don't fall for the tripe of commercials telling me Apple invented the tablet when I've seen them around for most of my life running windows just fine, and having more features than the ipad for years before it came out.

+1 to that. I've thought the same thing for over half a decade.

However, I stand by what i've said earlier about Windows 8. Wrong direction to take that OS trying to be a jack of all trades but master of none... Another article I read speculated that like in Mac land there will be a hardware lock-out of sorts on certain devices (Laptops, Tablets etc). As long as I will still be able to build my own Desktop PC from parts I don't care, but it looks like Microsoft want to force tighter control onto the hardware platform that W8 will be running on for many. Maybe Steve B should stop trying to copy Steve J...

WarriorProphet wrote:

They've been selling tablets running full version of windows since XP and before, and up until 2 years ago had a virtual monopoly on tablets used in industry and medical, now the ipad comes out in 2009 and you think its a new idea? Suckling at the TV teets much?

I for one hate all the dumbed down tablets, while android provides more choice and functionality than iOS both PALE compared to a win7 tablet in the same price range. ipad2 64gb wifi/3g, can't do silverlight or flash web browsing, half of the apps not optimized for screen size, crappy cameras, dualcore mobile CPU, almost no RAM, only 2 years of maturity: $850.

Windows 7 tablet, same IPS screen, 320gb SSD, 2gb RAM, wifi/3G, 5mp/720p front camera, 2mp webcam, memory card slot(S), fully functional USB ports, dualcore laptop class processors, runs all desktop apps plus many tablet optimized apps, complete html5/flash/silverlight browsing with desktop class browsers, 10year+ platform support: $ 700-$1000 depending on bundle.

The ipad is an overgrown ipod, the windows tablet is a fully functional PC with the peripherals removed, you can hook it up to an RS232 port and run a diagnostic, connect a router by USB and flash a new firmware, surf the entire web, run much more graphically intense apps than an ipad can dream of, and actually replace and ipod, ipad, and laptop with it...

Sorry I just don't fall for the tripe of commercials telling me Apple invented the tablet when I've seen them around for most of my life running windows just fine, and having more features than the ipad for years before it came out.

I don't think I ever stated that Apple invented the tablet. I've been following tech for long enough to know full well they didn't. Furthermore, they don't have the most powerful hardware in a tablet either. As you've shown, there are much more capable machines in the tablet space. But let's be clear. Apple's iPad is the most successful tablet out, by far, and that probably won't change anytime soon.

First of all, if you really do believe that the value of the iPad is simply the sum of it's hardware, you'll continually be baffled by the iPad's appeal. Seriously. Listing superior specs from windows based tablets does nothing but illustrate that the windows tablet market fails due to factors completely unrelated to how fast it is.

The iPad might be an overgrown iPod touch, but the iPod touch is the best device in it's class. There's nothing wrong with taking a successful product and expanding on it--but only if that expansion can be done without compromising what the original product was. Honestly, I don't think MS gets that at all. You can't take a PC OS, designed for virtually no touch, and saddled with decades of backwards compatibility and baggage, and put it on a tablet with an ARM chip and half a GB of RAM.

Don't get me wrong--I don't own an iPad, I don't really want one, and I have both overclocked PCs and Macs. I just know a good idea when I see one. The iPad is not brilliant because they did hugely brilliant things all at once, they didn't. It's the result of a decade of natural progression. First iTunes and the iPod, then the music store, the the iPhone/iTouch, then the app store, then the iPad. They took one successful idea, and built on it to create another product. When that succeeded, they took those two and created a third, and so on. The result is that they made a 1.0 product look and feel very mature and familiar, despite the product itself having zero mindshare with consumers.

I don't think millions of people are just 'falling for the hype'. Also, I don't think too many people care about who invented the tablet. All they know is that Apple essentially epitomizes the tablet right now, and they want to be a part of that. I don't blame them.

Apple certainly did invent the first tablet that people, you know, actually wanted.

bthylafh wrote:

As a Model M user, I am a paragon of virtue.

derFunkenstein wrote:

Apple certainly did invent the first tablet that people, you know, actually wanted.

I have a windows tablet that I wanted before there was an ipad!

Out of curiosity how many people have ever even tried a win7 tablet?? Its actually suprisingly easy to do almost anything. Where it certianly loses to an ipad is form factor. An ipad is thin and light compared to any competent windows tablet. I ask this because lots of people denounce it but I'm not sure if they've even tried it. When you run a tablet there are a number of tweaks to the system that make it easier to use with either a finger or a stylus.

Certainly the overheating and heavy thing (4ish lbs) I have isn't in the same catagory. Buuut then again its got decent hardware, plays dvds, and games, and when I need it to, has a keyboard and touchpad ready to go for doing microsoft office, cad,...

and it cost $900 over 2 years ago...

derFunkenstein wrote:

Apple certainly did invent the first tablet that people, you know, actually wanted.

No, they just invented the first tablet that was heavily marketed. There have been tablets running Windows for years, and they've actually done fairly well considering how little they were pushed. The iPad itself isn't anything to get excited about; as with their other products, you're paying a little bit more to get a little bit less. They're just the first company to really put marketing muscle behind one.

Apple stole the tablet concept from the exact same place they stole most of their "new technology", namely XEROX PARC.

Madman wrote:

Smartphone interface for desktop OS? Seriously WTF??!

This interface is a direct response to the way the average person uses their phone, tablet, and yes even their computer.

This new UI is not Microsoft's will, it is Microsoft's knee jerk reaction to Web 2.0. This is a direct result of the collateral damage of Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, YouTube, Skype, IM, and even blogs. This is the social network that some of us enthsiasts could not give a damn about rising from the ocean like an awakened Godzilla.

The Windows 7 Phone interface received strong praise for how it consolidated social interaction into it's UI. We now see it making the transition from the phone into the tablet and home PC to accommodate this NWO we call Web 2.0.

I suspect even a misanthrope like me will find a few uses for it. I'm not opposed to it or even hate it, but if it makes you violent I suggest you direct that hate in the proper direction: Facebook.

If upon realizing this you also note that you use Facebook, then clearly ritual suicide to save your honor is all that remains after helping to awaken this beast.

Captain Ned wrote:

Apple stole the tablet concept from the exact same place they stole most of their "new technology", namely XEROX PARC.

For goodness sake. Get your facts straight. Xerox invited Apple in to see their tech. Xerox received financial compensation from Apple for the use of that tech.

cphite wrote:

derFunkenstein wrote:

Apple certainly did invent the first tablet that people, you know, actually wanted.

No, they just invented the first tablet that was heavily marketed. There have been tablets running Windows for years, and they've actually done fairly well considering how little they were pushed. The iPad itself isn't anything to get excited about; as with their other products, you're paying a little bit more to get a little bit less. They're just the first company to really put marketing muscle behind one.

Marketing is just one of a number of factors that has led to the success of the iPad. To suggest that marketing is the only reason behind the success of the iPad is just plain wrong.

It is universally known that the pricing of the iPad is very aggressive.

End User wrote:

It is universally known that the pricing of the iPad is very aggressive.

Aggresively taking money from consumers. isuppli did a breakdown on the bom cost for an ipad and it came out to $250 for the cheap one and like $350-$400 for the more expensive models. The margins from a straight materials stand point are huge.

There is a reason other tablets are now coming out with similar hardware (probably more expensive though not necessarily better hardware) for much less.

Anyways I think its waaay too early to say anything definitive about the new winodws interface. They left a huge number of important details out. They haven't demoed it with a mouse and keyboard and maybe they can prove people wrong and show it actually works really well like that. I think not being able to necessarily jump to a specific program without pulling 15 others off the left side seems like a flaw but I bet they have a way around that we haven't seen.

ApockofFork wrote:

There is a reason other tablets are now coming out with similar hardware (probably more expensive though not necessarily better hardware) for much less.

The 32GB Xoom, 32GB PlayBook and the 32GB Galaxy Tab 10.1 match the 32GB iPad 2 on pricing.