Article: PC makers plan rebellion against Windows at 2014 CES, analysts say

[Reflexx]

I stopped reading after "fox news"

Reputable and legitimate news agency. Don't know why people get all weird about it.

 

[WavingReds]

I stopped reading after "fox news"

yeah me too lol

 

[hagjohn]

I didn't even bother to read. Frankly, I'm enjoying Windows 8.1, Surface2 and WP. I don't care what the haters say. I think MS is moving into the right direction.

Adding an insecure layer onto what has finally become a very stable/safe version of windows would be madness.

 

[Guytronic]

This might be a deflection and not relevant to the original post.

Pointing to a CNN story about the biggest tech failures of 2013.
I was telling my wife that the Surface RT and Windows the tiled start screen are two of the most hated\ragged subject items on the internet today
She got somewhat miffed and then stated:
"So I gave you a technological failure for your birthday then...?!"

Being a well trained husband of 32 years I returned with:
Not at all my sweet...I have studied relentlessly and knew the Surface would be a product that glowed brightly when held in my lap.
I would not have specifically asked for a Windows product if I didn't believe in the purchase.

As said many times before the recent price reductions on Windows hardware have drawn many to Windows on the go.
I think the on-line news-review-opinion-battle means little, always fun to read of course.
Most random negative news I've read has never swayed me if I wanted something bad enough.

To me good marketing and price cutting win out over all.

 

[fdalbor]

If you have not tried or even experimented with a Android emulator on a computer you can give Bluestacks a try. Its free; but it is a very Beta program and it takes a good while to get used to. Don't try to use it for anything but experimenting with or you will be very disappointed. But if you don't have but would like to try Android it will give you the chance to do it with out any cash outlay. All my smartphones and my familys are WP8 and all my tablets (3) are Android, my desktops and laptops are Windows so I live in a world that has a bridge between Android/Windows/ and Windows phone. Sorry no Apple, not for any real reason except that I am happy with the stuff I use now. Oh yea just for informations sake; 2 of my computers are Win8.1 and 2 are still using XP. Why still XP, you would be surprised the number of older programs that will not run on 8.1, or 8 for that matter.

 

[ikissfutebol]

Well...Microsoft has gone on record as saying that Surface is supposed to be attacking the high-end where OEMs were struggling to put together compelling hardware. Samsung and Google (via whomever they pick) have the high end Android on lock down between the Galaxy and Nexus lines. I'm not quite sure where HP, Dell, Lenovo, ASUS, etc. plan on competing in which they could not use the SAME strategy with Windows. The problem is that the "high end" and "low end" are now separated by relatively very little. Previously, a $200 netbook made sense for some because the high end was in the $1,000s. You can now get a high end tablet and a keyboard for it for significantly less than $1,000- why buy a full computer if it isn't necessary? The bigger thing Microsoft needs to worry about is that things actually function at the current standard bearer- Windows Phone is currently crippled by the terrible music management. It needs to AT LEAST be on par with iTunes. Shipping things like the Windows 8 mail app at launch and NOT the 8.1 update was completely irresponsible.

The issue is and always will be companies adopting fast enough to change. How many other companies have died because they failed to adapt fast enough? Thousands. The new personal computer market is changing faster than companies can/will. Similar to how the car market got too big in the mid/late 2000s with companies have 5-7 of the same exact model that compete with one another under different brands, I think OEMs should go the Apple/Microsoft/Google/Amazon route- have virtually the same hardware that increase one thing (likely storage) between tiers- CPU/RAM, etc. can be done between tiers, too. It is stupid when you look at Best Buy and for $100 you can get the same model with this or that upgrade under virtually the same model. That can only mean manufacturing costs are higher than necessary and that the OEMs have less revenue. The tech community needs to remember how little the average consumer needs. If you are going to respond with, "but I need x, y, z", you are the problem and not the solution. Raise the costs for specialty/custom systems and start shipping out systems that are essentially netbooks with actual CPUs. If it saves them (OEMs) money to ship one device with Android AND Windows 8, go for it. Just give us the ability to recover that storage and I don't think anyone will bat an eye.

The most important thing for Microsoft is to actually start marketing their products correctly. The new ones that talk about the features with the little one-way interviews is at least a sign that they are finally waking up. Break dancing kids, no. I think it would do wonders to actually have a little kid as well as an elderly senior citizen doing all the things you can do with Windows 8.1 as opposed to simulated screens.

Ultimately, I think a lot will rest on the Windows Phone 8.1 update. If Microsoft screws it up with beta software akin to the W8 launch, they will be struggling. If they make the the update exclusive for new software, they are toast. Lastly, I would actually prefer if Microsoft took over the low and mid-range. They have shown with XBox that they are not afraid to sell at razor thin margins and make it up in accessories/software sales. I think it would be a lot easier if they had Surface with ARM, Atom, i5/7 and called it a day. I reckon they could sell Surface RT for significantly less than the current rate once they truly stop caring about OEMs.

 

[a5cent]

I think it would do wonders to actually have a little kid as well as an elderly senior citizen doing all the things you can do with Windows 8.1 as opposed to simulated screens.

You mean like this?

 

[Angry_Mushroom]

"Scare the heck out of Microsoft?" Why? At the very least they'll still be the primary OS on the laptop, and android will be a secondary gimmick. Face it. If I get myself a nice Galaxy S4... I will likely reach for that to play Angry Birds then go through menus to boot up a flaky emulator.

I don't see any revolution against Microsoft. Revolution was threatened by OEMs when the Surface launched. Instead convertible tablets suddenly sprung up everywhere. The supposed revolution against MS turned into an evolution of consumer electronics. I'll be straightforward. If any OEM installs an Android emulator app on my next PC, I'm uninstalling it. I've used Windows 8/8.1 with both a touchscreen and a mouse and keyboard. I've found out one thing. I prefer both over a generic touchpad interface.

 

[Guytronic]

You mean like this?

An absolute joy to watch!!!
I love the last part "I'll get my colleague to answer that" so sweet!

 

[mlm1950]

Where would any of these PC makers be without Microsoft and Windows?

Enjoy your Chromebook.

 

[bilzkh]

I'm not one to be crude, but the media and the PC OEMs can go and suck their sh!t back in.

Honestly, there are just too many dumb sh!ts out there hating on Microsoft for the sake of hating on Microsoft, not because their products and services have their share of flaws. What ******** product/service doesn't have problems and gaps? The reality of human nature will always guarantee imperfect products and services, to HELL with anyone who is going to guilt-trip Microsoft whilst praise Apple/Google for "forward-leaning decisions." F-OFF, seriously.

If I were Microsoft I'd release a $250 Windows RT device with Type Cover and totally out-maneuver, out-market and out-think the OEMs and their Chromebooks. Not only that, but I'd also seek out those nascent Chrome OS developers and convert them to Windows RT: Get them to orient all of their web app development to Windows RT. If the OEMs felt hurt over Surface, then I'll be sure to step it up 2-3 notches with this particular series, i.e. "Courier" - our entry-level tablet series, $249 with Type Cover.

 

[gsquared]

"Scare the heck out of Microsoft?"

Heh. Easier said than done.

 

[sahib lopez]

"Scare the heck out of Microsoft?" Why? At the very least they'll still be the primary OS on the laptop, and android will be a secondary gimmick. Face it. If I get myself a nice Galaxy S4... I will likely reach for that to play Angry Birds then go through menus to boot up a flaky emulator.

I don't see any revolution against Microsoft. Revolution was threatened by OEMs when the Surface launched. Instead convertible tablets suddenly sprung up everywhere. The supposed revolution against MS turned into an evolution of consumer electronics. I'll be straightforward. If any OEM installs an Android emulator app on my next PC, I'm uninstalling it. I've used Windows 8/8.1 with both a touchscreen and a mouse and keyboard. I've found out one thing. I prefer both over a generic touchpad interface.

this!!!!! i could never use on a phone much less on a tablet because i found it annoying to navigate though menus. and if comes in a computer that's the first thing im taking off my computer ( good thing i build my own ) i never liked google bloatware/malware and i never will

 

[Mike Gibson]

...
This is how MS can fix W8 (technically, I'm not sure the perception of W8 can be saved):
...

Why they didn't do this in the first release is beyond me. It's like MSFT *wanted* Win8 to fail. I imagine most people look at a Win8 computer and ask, "where's my Windows?" (i.e. the one they're familiar with). Then they realize that if they're going to need to learn a completely new UI, they might as well give non-Windows systems a try or wait to see what happens with Win8. Either choice is lethal to MSFT. It will be a much smaller company in 5 to 10 years unless they come to their senses and refocus on the so-called "Desktop" Windows.

If MSFT is dead set on attempting to force the Metro UI on users then they should adopt your plan. If they want to actually succeed then they need to sh*tcan the entire RT effort and do the following:

1. Create a subset of the Win32 API (cut out old, obsolete APIs), let's call it Win32X
2. Add a simple, scalable UI API to Win32X to replace USER and GDI (hammer home scalability in the programming guides)
3. Have a Win32X Store that takes the best features of the WinRT Store (easy installation, updates, portability, etc.)
4. Charge a max of 10% of the purchase price in the Win32X Store
5. Backport the damn thing to Windows 7 so that devs have a huge existing market to sell into
6. Open Win32X apps fullscreen on small devices, windowed on large devices

Killing WinRT and WinPRT adopting this plan results in many positives:

a. Devs, including MSFT itself, no longer have to create two or more versions of their programs (one for WinRT, another for WinPRT, and yet another for Win32)
b. No stupid Async functionality (devs can use the much simpler multithreading functionality in Win32)
c. No stupid exception-based error handling in the core API (which is terrible when you have bugs in released code)
d. Users work in their familiar Desktop environment on familiar devices (laptops and desktops)
e. Users benefit because the UI adapts to the device they're using at the moment (which is what they expect to happen)

 

[Jas00555]

Alright, I've thought about this multiple times and I have no clue wtf the OEMS are thinking if they do this. Like everything about this seems completely idiotic and and downright stupid.
"Yo, guys, we heard you didn't like PCs that had a desktop OS and a tablet OS, so we're gonna give you a PC with less storage that has one desktop OS and 2 tablet OSes. Yeah, you'll like that."

Nothing about this makes sense tbh, it sounds like they don't want to make a Windows tablet and an Android tablet separately (think Dell Venue and Dell Venue Pro) so they're just making one with both on it. If that's the case, that's just going to hurt the consumer in that they'll be stuck with an OS that they don't want.

I mean, I can see why they think its a good idea to do this to save money, but wtf do they think consumers want a dual-boot computer out of the box. They're just helping Microsoft imo. Think about it, would you want a tablet with one simple OS or one with 2 different ones? It'll just drive Surface and iPad sales since they'll be the only 2 with 1 OS on it.

 

[a5cent]

If MSFT is dead set on attempting to force the Metro UI on users then they should adopt your plan. If they want to actually succeed then they need to sh*tcan the entire RT effort and do the following:

Windows RT's main problem has little to do with APIs. While I agree that much of the new-fangled APIs are too concerned with looking modern rather than being efficient, scalable, flexible and robust, the bigger reasons for concern are market perception, consumer acceptance, the lack of tablet optimized software for WRT, and the big question revolving around what a touch based interface is doing on people's desktops who use nothing but a keyboard and mouse. If existing customers had welcomed Windows 8.x with open arms, and everyone agreed that it was a must-have update over Windows 7, then the developers would have put up with the API related shortcomings and delivered the apps. Developers always go where the paying customers are.

Anyway, as far as I can tell, Windows RT is already dead. It will disappear and be replaced by an upcoming version of WP, which will replicate many of the features currently exclusive to WRT.

The modern UI is here to stay however. MS was right to somewhat forcibly expose users to the metro UI. Change never happens without some force. Like I said, MS just needed to keep the navigation and window arrangement paradigms separated... that mistake was far more consequential than anything MS could have screwed up with the APIs.

Why they didn't do this in the first release is beyond me. It's like MSFT *wanted* Win8 to fail.

I don't know what W8 would have looked like if I had designed it without any of the knowledge we have today. The people who worked on it probably were thinking a bit too much about where they wanted to be... not enough about the current customer base and where they are. Considering the pressure they must have been under to catch up with the mobile revolution that was underway, that mistake isn't completely incomprehensible. Hindsight does make a lot of things look obvious, much of which probably wasn't at the time.

Unfortunately, Windows 8 has turned out to be counterproductive... at the worst possible time.

 

[Guytronic]

Windows RT's main problem has little to do with APIs. While I agree that much of the new-fangled APIs are too concerned with looking modern rather than being efficient, scalable, flexible and robust, the bigger reasons for concern are market perception, consumer acceptance, the lack of tablet optimized software for WRT, and the big question revolving around what a touch based interface is doing on people's desktops who use nothing but a keyboard and mouse. If existing customers had welcomed Windows 8.x with open arms, and everyone agreed that it was a must-have update over Windows 7, then the developers would have put up with the API related shortcomings and delivered the apps. Developers always go where the paying customers are.

Anyway, as far as I can tell, Windows RT is already dead. It will disappear and be replaced by an upcoming version of WP, which will replicate many of the features currently exclusive to WRT.

The modern UI is here to stay however. MS was right to somewhat forcibly expose users to the metro UI. Change never happens without some force. Like I said, MS just needed to keep the navigation and window arrangement paradigms separated... that mistake was far more consequential than anything MS could have screwed up with the APIs.



I don't know what W8 would have looked like if I had designed it without any of the knowledge we have today. The people who worked on it probably were thinking a bit too much about where they wanted to be... not enough about the current customer base and where they are. Considering the pressure they must have been under to catch up with the mobile revolution that was underway, that mistake isn't completely incomprehensible. Hindsight does make a lot of things look obvious, much of which probably wasn't at the time.

Unfortunately, Windows 8 has turned out to be counterproductive... at the worst possible time.

Key words...

 

[Mike Gibson]

Anyway, as far as I can tell, Windows RT is already dead. It will disappear and be replaced by an upcoming version of WP, which will replicate many of the features currently exclusive to WRT.

What's hilarious, in a sad way, is that WinRT is a better implementation of the RT concept than WinPRT!

The modern UI is here to stay however. MS was right to somewhat forcibly expose users to the metro UI. Change never happens without some force. Like I said, MS just needed to keep the navigation and window arrangement paradigms separated... that mistake was far more consequential than anything MS could have screwed up with the APIs.

Metro is dead on large screen devices (not phones). Also, the APIs played a large part in the Win8 disaster. I won't port my Win32 programs to WinRT because I would have to maintain two completely separate code bases, not to mention that it's basically impossible to produce a complex RT program. If they had simply extended Win32 with a simple scalable UI API and backported it to Win7, I would have happily converted my programs over to it. Why? Because I could have covered phones, tablets, laptops, desktops, and XBox with one code base. It would have been fantastic for both devs and users.

I don't know what W8 would have looked like if I had designed it without any of the knowledge we have today. The people who worked on it probably were thinking a bit too much about where they wanted to be... not enough about the current customer base and where they are. Considering the pressure they must have been under to catch up with the mobile revolution that was underway, that mistake isn't completely incomprehensible. Hindsight does make a lot of things look obvious, much of which probably wasn't at the time.

Lack of time or resources is NOT an excuse for a company with 90,000+ employees. And maintaining backwards compatibility was always the number one concern in the Windows group. I don't know how many times I had to modify my Win95 code to maintain backwards compatibility (even to the point of zeroing specific locations on the stack to cover up uninitialized variables in third part programs!). They knew that completely breaking backwards compatibility was a disaster in the making. My guess is that the business side of MSFT got greedy and thought they could profit from the 30% cut of WinRT app sales.

Unfortunately, Windows 8 has turned out to be counterproductive... at the worst possible time.

You're being too kind. Disaster is a better word. As I've said before, Win8/RT/Metro may end up killing the entire company. MSFT needs to fire everyone involved in the Metro/RT debacle. The CEO and Windows chief are already gone. Now they need to root out the PMs and SDEs who designed and implemented it.

 

[Reflexx]

I do think the 30% cut is too large; especially for expensive products. There really should be a cap on how much MS makes from a sale. Maybe around $30. Right now, a company that makes $800 software isn't ever going to make an RT version; even if it wad as easy as hitting a magic "Convert" button.

WinRT can still succeed, but I agree that they need to open up more APIs.

 

[Mike Gibson]

I do think the 30% cut is too large; especially for expensive products. There really should be a cap on how much MS makes from a sale. Maybe around $30. Right now, a company that makes $800 software isn't ever going to make an RT version; even if it wad as easy as hitting a magic "Convert" button.

I don't have a problem with them charging a percentage of the sales prices ... but 30% is *way* too high (even the high volume 20% rate is too high). They're just copying AAPL and GOOG's stores. If small Win32 resellers can get by on 5-7% I don't see why MSFT can't. I'd support a 10% cut since MSFT handles the certifying, updating, etc.

WinRT can still succeed, but I agree that they need to open up more APIs.

The latest rumors from Thurrott and Foley say that WinRT is basically dead and that MSFT will grow WinPRT instead. If that turns out to be true then we'll see a "Revenge of the Desktop in Windows 9. What's interesting is how this somewhat parallels the Windows-vs-OS/2 debacle in the late 1980s/early 1990s. Win16 was in widespread usage but MSFT deemed it a "legacy" API. The OS/2 API was the new way and both MSFT and IBM poured resources into it for several years. Unfortunately, users had a death grip on Win16, Windows 3.0/3.1 exploded on the scene, and Win95 (with its highly Win16-compatible Win32 API) finally buried OS/2. Changing to a completely new and incompatible API didn't make sense back then and it doesn't make sense now.

Also, MSFT needs to seek help for its C# fetish. If they're serious about M# then they're *really* doomed.