What do you think about the CShell?

[Drael646464]

I'd guess all the FCU updates and cshell are coming to existing phones. For one, the only new phone on the immediate horizon is HPs refresh. Secondly we have seen features like "placeholders" and "cshell" demonstrated on 32 bit machines, existing machines (the 950 and x3 respectively) - the next gen will nessasarily be 64 bit, as that is all the QUALCOMM make now.

It would make sense of the second branch - that its intended to bring the old gen of phones up to speed with the new gen, before the 'hand over'. All those features like timeline etc. The 4s and x3 aren't that old, it's a bit early to retire them, and not enough to replace them.

It also makes sense of why they are working so closely with HP - presumably the x3 refresh is 64 bit, and they ae doing parallel development with them, using that as reference hardware for the secret win10m build (Which I think ill have stylus support than our branch may never see)

MSFT must be painfully aware of the importance of good transition here. As they intend to release a new phone soonish (next year most likely, Andromeda), they will also be watching this ball more closely.

I think FCU will be "the last great update". It may be while mobile is still on feature two, but because "productivity features" have been announced for late US summer by MFST, we won't have to wait long to see whether their is any folding back into the main branch for this.

No doubt, their stated reason, to work on one core makes a great deal of sense, given the move the 64 bit, windows s, windows on arm, the new console OS, Andromeda, and changes like cshell and the inclusion of phone features in the core as a default. There is some serious OS code shake up here, and we are seeing very little of it, as yet.

But it does seem unlikely current phones will get much after this year than bugfixes and security, given the 64 bit change that must be coming.

I hope MSFT handles this transition well. If it dumps existing phones despite many overt promises of coming features (improvements to continuum, timeline etc), even in recent months, it will bee totally shooting itself in the foot.

Logically it makes sense they would (burning their userbase at this crucial point, and outright lying to them would not be smart), and also logically it makes sense they have already written such code for existing hardware (using both the x3 and 950 as reference hardware, as we've seen these technologies demonstrated on said hardware)

I wouldn't be surprised if cshell is the 'productivity features' coming in late summer. I would be quite surprised if current big four models get nothing for FCU or late summer.

If there were some other popular handset on the horizon, or already released there might be more reason to suspect otherwise. As it stands, what else would they be releasing the incoming features for? A single HP handset that isn't released yet?

 

[mattiasnyc]

I just have a hard time believing the general public would be excited by the idea of running Win32 software (we won't have any meaningful continuum capable UWP apps for quite some time yet) from a phone sized package that still requires them to hook up a large monitor and keyboard. For most, that would surely seem like MS is just making things more complicated, compared to just using an ultrabook which already integrates all the required peripherals.

I think the reception so far is further evidence that not many people are genuinely excited by the prospects of Continuum.

Lastly, MS doesn't seem to think Continuum is of much interest to consumers either. They are marketing it towards enterprise customers.

While Continuum is certainly a unique feature, I just don't see the mass market being interested in that capability, particularly not while it remains essentially a desktop computer in a small package. That's really not compatible with mass market needs.



A killer feature is any disruptive technology or feature. A disruptive techology or feature is one that revolutionizes the market to which the technology is introduced, or it creates an entirely new market that didn't previously exist.

When Apple released the first iPhone, it was the only pocketable device that allowed people to surf the web in a way that didn't make you want to kill yourself. That, combined with the touch interface made the iPhone uniquely useful and uniquely fool proof. It single handedly made smartphones a mass market phenomenon.

The introduction of the graphical user interface was also a killer feature.

There are a gazillion other examples but I'm sure you get the idea.

So basically you see "killer feature" as a feature that's disruptive. That's not what "killer feature" means to me. To me it's a feature that's great on its own merits, not hinging upon people liking and using it. So fine, whatever. It's a 100% meaningless point to make, that CShell isn't a "killer feature", because the W10M market share is so low that the feature never ever meet your criteria without W10M reaching a sufficient market share.

So really all you're doing is saying W10M has a small market share. Well, duh. Describing that isn't really particularly useful when talking about the intrinsic value of CShell.

In addition to that you're wrong - in my opinion - about there being "a gazillion other examples" of "killer features" if a "killer feature" also has to be disruptive. If there are a gazillion disruptive features then there's more disruption than status quo. It's simply not a particularly logical way to look at it.

it remains essentially a desktop computer in a small package. That's really not compatible with mass market needs.

Yeah, you just described a smartphone. That's what it is; a computer in a small package with a screen. Is that what the mass market needs? It's what it uses daily. Whether or not people end up hooking it up to a terminal is a different issue.

But again: What are the valid argument outside of needing more computation power, for paying for more than one powerful CPU? What's the appeal to you in paying a lot for a smart phone and then again paying a lot for a laptop??? Why would you do that if you don't have to?

I just have a hard time believing the general public would be excited by the idea of running Win32 software (we won't have any meaningful continuum capable UWP apps for quite some time yet) from a phone sized package that still requires them to hook up a large monitor and keyboard.

All that you need to solve the above nuisance - and that's really all it is, a nuisance - is to make the connection wireless. You can already cast continuum to a screen wirelessly, and MS was already working on making it possible to have continuum enable based on proximity.

So, just give that some thought: Rather than paying several times for CPUs, one for you smart phone, one for you tablet, one for your laptop etc, you pay for a great CPU once, and then for "screens" you want (and keyboards if you want them). You can set your preference so that when you walk into your home your main device, the smartphone, automatically 'projects' onto your preferred device. Could be a wall mounted interactive TV with accompanying keyboard, or a super-thin super-light "laptop".

No need to log in again or making sure there's network connectivity, because you already took care of that on your smartphone using biometric login. No need to sync data, because it's all running off of your one device (with OneDrive sync).

All one has to do is watch sci-fi from the past couple of decades. It's all pointing towards smaller devices that are easier to carry, if at all. Portable computation devices take a backseat to interaction with input/output devices. Even the MS video posted here in one of the threads, the one that's a few years old, shows exactly that same future vision; where people walk up to a screen or glass pane and just "project" their experience onto that i/o device.

And what is one of the practical problems getting such a fluid experience to work? It's exactly what CShell and continuum aims to solve.

Lack of imagination = low adoption = no disruption =/= not killer features, in my book.

 

[nate0]

All that you need to solve the above nuisance - and that's really all it is, a nuisance - is to make the connection wireless. You can already cast continuum to a screen wirelessly, and MS was already working on making it possible to have continuum enable based on proximity.
So, just give that some thought: Rather than paying several times for CPUs, one for you smart phone, one for you tablet, one for your laptop etc, you pay for a great CPU once, and then for "screens" you want (and keyboards if you want them). You can set your preference so that when you walk into your home your main device, the smartphone, automatically 'projects' onto your preferred device. Could be a wall mounted interactive TV with accompanying keyboard, or a super-thin super-light "laptop".
No need to log in again or making sure there's network connectivity, because you already took care of that on your smartphone using biometric login. No need to sync data, because it's all running off of your one device (with OneDrive sync).

I thought about that. If such a Windows device materializes it would be the "One" device for all computing needs...more or less...

That would definitely be a consumer driven device.

 

[Drael646464]

So basically you see "killer feature" as a feature that's disruptive. That's not what "killer feature" means to me. To me it's a feature that's great on its own merits, not hinging upon people liking and using it. So fine, whatever. It's a 100% meaningless point to make, that CShell isn't a "killer feature", because the W10M market share is so low that the feature never ever meet your criteria without W10M reaching a sufficient market share.

So really all you're doing is saying W10M has a small market share. Well, duh. Describing that isn't really particularly useful when talking about the intrinsic value of CShell.

In addition to that you're wrong - in my opinion - about there being "a gazillion other examples" of "killer features" if a "killer feature" also has to be disruptive. If there are a gazillion disruptive features then there's more disruption than status quo. It's simply not a particularly logical way to look at it.



Yeah, you just described a smartphone. That's what it is; a computer in a small package with a screen. Is that what the mass market needs? It's what it uses daily. Whether or not people end up hooking it up to a terminal is a different issue.

But again: What are the valid argument outside of needing more computation power, for paying for more than one powerful CPU? What's the appeal to you in paying a lot for a smart phone and then again paying a lot for a laptop??? Why would you do that if you don't have to?



All that you need to solve the above nuisance - and that's really all it is, a nuisance - is to make the connection wireless. You can already cast continuum to a screen wirelessly, and MS was already working on making it possible to have continuum enable based on proximity.

So, just give that some thought: Rather than paying several times for CPUs, one for you smart phone, one for you tablet, one for your laptop etc, you pay for a great CPU once, and then for "screens" you want (and keyboards if you want them). You can set your preference so that when you walk into your home your main device, the smartphone, automatically 'projects' onto your preferred device. Could be a wall mounted interactive TV with accompanying keyboard, or a super-thin super-light "laptop".

No need to log in again or making sure there's network connectivity, because you already took care of that on your smartphone using biometric login. No need to sync data, because it's all running off of your one device (with OneDrive sync).

All one has to do is watch sci-fi from the past couple of decades. It's all pointing towards smaller devices that are easier to carry, if at all. Portable computation devices take a backseat to interaction with input/output devices. Even the MS video posted here in one of the threads, the one that's a few years old, shows exactly that same future vision; where people walk up to a screen or glass pane and just "project" their experience onto that i/o device.

And what is one of the practical problems getting such a fluid experience to work? It's exactly what CShell and continuum aims to solve.

Lack of imagination = low adoption = no disruption =/= not killer features, in my book.

This is one of many issues with continuum going mainstream - price. So long as you can buy a cheap laptop or desktop, and a cheap phone, for less than just the one device, its not that useful as a feature. The phone also has to keep up with the desktop.

I believe the true three in one tablet or phone requires thunderbolt 3, for external hdd, and gpu. And it needs to be cheapish, and have plenty of local storage AND run just like a desktop. I think we'll get there one day. And when we do, there will be some consumer value in it.

Already there are folks in poor areas than now forgo multiple devices for phones. If they could, get a full PC experience for less cash, I'm sure that would appeal. But it needs to mainly be cheaper and truly PC like, for it to have that value. Not quite there yet. But it'll get there.

 

[Drael646464]

You can get a phone for 100 usd, a notebook or PC for 200 USD (both low end admittedly). Really to be successful a continuum phone and dock AND monitor/keyboard needs to be around 300-500 usd, as well as decent as a PC alternative.

When that happens, and includes TB3 for the dock, and thats awhile off, I'm sure some consumers will see the value. Because the primary advantage of reducing device redundancy is price (there's also syncing etc, but price is primary)

 

[anthonyng]

I wonder how far back they thought about how to get to cshell today. Like at window 8.1? It's been a lot of little incremental steps along the way from our perspective, just wondering how much planning and adjustments they have been doing for cshell

 

[Drael646464]

I wonder how far back they thought about how to get to cshell today. Like at window 8.1? It's been a lot of little incremental steps along the way from our perspective, just wondering how much planning and adjustments they have been doing for cshell

True, they've been talking about a single OS across devices since win10 was released, and that must have been in development for quite awhile. Presumably this whole plan goes back a long way, back to 8.1/rt days.

 

[a5cent]

I wonder how far back they thought about how to get to cshell today. Like at window 8.1? It's been a lot of little incremental steps along the way from our perspective, just wondering how much planning and adjustments they have been doing for cshell

I agree with Drael. This has been on MS' roadmap for many years already. I don't know when MS decided Windows is to run on a wide range of form factors, but CShell was certainly already part of the feasibility study outlining how to achieve that goal.

We see a lot of complaining about the constant WP/WM reboots, but from a technical perspective every version of WP/WM was a step in the exact same direction, with each major version systematically replacing parts of WP/WM with parts from full Windows. For me it's impossible to view that systematic and deliberate approach as a series of reboots. To my mind what people perceived as reboots were largely the result of economic considerations, not that this makes things any better unfortunately...

 

[Aamir Mustafa]

it looks good so far but lot of enhancements and improvements should be brought into CShell

 

[mattiasnyc]

This is one of many issues with continuum going mainstream - price. So long as you can buy a cheap laptop or desktop, and a cheap phone, for less than just the one device, its not that useful as a feature. The phone also has to keep up with the desktop.

I don't think that's logical.

First of all, the phone having to "keep up with" a desktop is really only relevant to those creating content and using pretty heavy applications. For them "cheap" laptops and desktops won't apply to begin with, so the two alternatives aren't really valid. If you need a powerful desktop that provides more than a smartphone ever will then of course continuum won't help solve that problem. But neither will buying a cheap desktop.

Secondly, even if you need a powerful laptop or desktop to do work there's a fair chance you still have more devices that effectively could act as merely i/o devices. Some people bought tablets when they became popular, but they already had a laptop and a smartphone and a TV... and maybe also a desktop. So clearly there are a lot of ways in which people consume, and a lot of it has to do more with convenience than actually having a need for all those devices' computational power.

And so lastly, what I'm saying is that when smartphones can compute what you need them to compute - which is already the case for a lot of tasks - then the question isn't whether or not you can also buy a cheap laptop, the question is why you would buy a cheap laptop for X dollars when you can spend less and get the same experience.

Basically you seem to be saying "Continuum is too expensive". I'll add that to just describing a lack of adoption and it being new technology rather than actually describing whether or not the technology in and by itself would be significant.

I believe the true three in one tablet or phone requires thunderbolt 3, for external hdd, and gpu. And it needs to be cheapish, and have plenty of local storage AND run just like a desktop. I think we'll get there one day. And when we do, there will be some consumer value in it.

Why would it need all of that? You have to look at what most people do on their computing devices. What are they doing that requires TB3, which has a massive bandwidth? It's never going to happen because mobile uses non-Intel chips to a large degree and Intel is sitting on the patent for TB, so they'll never release it cheaply enough for other manufacturers. More likely what we already have, USB-3.1 type-C is fine. Totally fine. External GPU is meaningless unless you're either creating content or gaming. For those duties we'll likely always have dedicated devices because the software that the devices drive keep pushing the need for more powerful cutting-edge devices. Won't ever fit in a smartphone or an external case.

Most people do word processing, check email, run excel, stream content from YouTube and Netflix etc, browse the net etc. None of that is that CPU intensive. I even think we can do all of it using continuum today, possibly with the exception of Netflix. Either way processing power is hardly the issue I think. If it is I'm betting that the next gen Snapdragon will take care of it nicely.

Already there are folks in poor areas than now forgo multiple devices for phones. If they could, get a full PC experience for less cash, I'm sure that would appeal. But it needs to mainly be cheaper and truly PC like, for it to have that value. Not quite there yet. But it'll get there.

From what I can see it's actually a truly PC like experience. Multiple windows, a start menu, full-screen if you want it, input/output using a keyboard and mouse/trackball if you want it.... etc. What's not "PC like" about it?

 

[mattiasnyc]

You can get a phone for 100 usd, a notebook or PC for 200 USD (both low end admittedly). Really to be successful a continuum phone and dock AND monitor/keyboard needs to be around 300-500 usd, as well as decent as a PC alternative.

And considering what poor performance you get out of a 200 dollar PC it seems to be on par at worst. I don't know a single person who spent 300 for those devices (when taking into account that you're actually still paying for your phone over time even though the carriers tell you it's "free" or "only 100 dollars").

Like I said, the tougher workloads you imply makes the PC necessary won't get done on 200 USD PCs either. Not even close.

the primary advantage of reducing device redundancy is price (there's also syncing etc, but price is primary)

I would actually argue that in the beginning transparency in the user experience is probably going to be more attractive than price. I know most people won't blow $600+ on a smartphone, but a lot of new adopters will. Not only that, they'll be the ones with a laptop, a smartphone, a tablet and a work desktop. And sure, one or two of those may be paid for by their employer, but still. So I think the appeal to that group, considering that they have the money to spend, will be simplicity and transparency.

Just walk into your home and no need to sync or log into devices etc, it's all just there. Start menu looks on your tablet like it looks on your desktop like it looks on your smartphone like it looks on your laptop..... just the way you left it... apps where you left off too... data is on the cloud.

Heck, my friend works for a large corporation that is currently relocating workers and they're about to essentially long-term rent pre-equipped office space. Well for that market again it seems it'd be a superb idea to offer dumb terminals. You wouldn't have to worry about data security that way, and no configuration issues either. Just walk in, biometrically unlock your device, and you're good to go.

 

[Drael646464]

I don't think that's logical.

First of all, the phone having to "keep up with" a desktop is really only relevant to those creating content and using pretty heavy applications. For them "cheap" laptops and desktops won't apply to begin with, so the two alternatives aren't really valid. If you need a powerful desktop that provides more than a smartphone ever will then of course continuum won't help solve that problem. But neither will buying a cheap desktop.

Secondly, even if you need a powerful laptop or desktop to do work there's a fair chance you still have more devices that effectively could act as merely i/o devices. Some people bought tablets when they became popular, but they already had a laptop and a smartphone and a TV... and maybe also a desktop. So clearly there are a lot of ways in which people consume, and a lot of it has to do more with convenience than actually having a need for all those devices' computational power.

And so lastly, what I'm saying is that when smartphones can compute what you need them to compute - which is already the case for a lot of tasks - then the question isn't whether or not you can also buy a cheap laptop, the question is why you would buy a cheap laptop for X dollars when you can spend less and get the same experience.

Basically you seem to be saying "Continuum is too expensive". I'll add that to just describing a lack of adoption and it being new technology rather than actually describing whether or not the technology in and by itself would be significant.



Why would it need all of that? You have to look at what most people do on their computing devices. What are they doing that requires TB3, which has a massive bandwidth? It's never going to happen because mobile uses non-Intel chips to a large degree and Intel is sitting on the patent for TB, so they'll never release it cheaply enough for other manufacturers. More likely what we already have, USB-3.1 type-C is fine. Totally fine. External GPU is meaningless unless you're either creating content or gaming. For those duties we'll likely always have dedicated devices because the software that the devices drive keep pushing the need for more powerful cutting-edge devices. Won't ever fit in a smartphone or an external case.

Most people do word processing, check email, run excel, stream content from YouTube and Netflix etc, browse the net etc. None of that is that CPU intensive. I even think we can do all of it using continuum today, possibly with the exception of Netflix. Either way processing power is hardly the issue I think. If it is I'm betting that the next gen Snapdragon will take care of it nicely.



From what I can see it's actually a truly PC like experience. Multiple windows, a start menu, full-screen if you want it, input/output using a keyboard and mouse/trackball if you want it.... etc. What's not "PC like" about it?

Cshell isn't on any devices yet. So its not multiple window. And you can't run win32s, and UWP isn't there yet, so if you want to run kodi, or iTunes, office 365 or whatever, you can't yet. Everyday people under 25 or so do also often game.
Not nessasarily intensive games, but its there. Who knows where VR may take all that in time.

Thunderbolt 3 would be plenty useful for tablets acting as 3 in 1s even if it isn't for phones. You can run i5 etc on a tablet, with thunderbolt; its your desktop, your laptop and your tablet, and that would suit people with more power demands. Device convergence isn't just for phones.

I think most people will want to second screen. Its very common, so at least two devices or screens suits most people, unless its an issue of dollars.

But it will have consumer appeal, when price and functionality converge right with consumer awareness. I'm not arguing that its useless, only that its sort of not quite there, and also not marketed to consumers.

Often the brand docks themselves are very overpriced when a cheap USB-c hub with hmdi can be cheap as chips.

Device convergence is a significant thing, whether its centred on your PC, your tablet or your phone (streaming from your PC to dumb terminal devices is another possibility with fast enough network speeds). I think its important, for consumers in the future.

 

[mikosoft]

I just think we must get people away from the idea that W10 is a single OS. That's a very widespread misconception, and posts like yours unintentionally strengthen it, because we too often conflate "single distribution" with "single OS". I've done it too... :-/

I am not sure if I can agree with this.

The basic definition of OS is that it is an interface between hardware and software, it manages the memory and the processes. I'd probably call this the "old" definition since modern OSes do more than just that (e.g. various media APIs like audio and video decompression, decoding and playback directly by OS) so I see a certain paradigm shift (yes, I just did use the phrase ). But still OS is not just the API or app model as much as it is not just the kernel. So if an OS includes a kernel and then two app models that are both served by the same kernel I would not call that two OSes in one. As much as I know both Win32 and UWP apps are served by the same kernel. Heck, according to this even in the original NT kernel there were already three app models (or subsytems) supported: Windows 2000 architecture. So I think it is a bit of a stretch to not call Win10 with both Win32 and UWP a single OS.

 

[a5cent]

I am not sure if I can agree with this.

The basic definition of OS is that it is an interface between hardware and software, it manages the memory and the processes. I'd probably call this the "old" definition since modern OSes do more than just that (e.g. various media APIs like audio and video decompression, decoding and playback directly by OS) so I see a certain paradigm shift (yes, I just did use the phrase ). But still OS is not just the API or app model as much as it is not just the kernel. So if an OS includes a kernel and then two app models that are both served by the same kernel I would not call that two OSes in one. As much as I know both Win32 and UWP apps are served by the same kernel. Heck, according to this even in the original NT kernel there were already three app models (or subsytems) supported: Windows 2000 architecture. So I think it is a bit of a stretch to not call Win10 with both Win32 and UWP a single OS.

Absolutely. I'm fully aware that I'm simplifying here. While the details you added help paint a more accurate picture, you've also lost every non-developer by the second sentence. You might be aware of the aphorism "all models are wrong, but some are at least useful". That's what I was going for here. I have three options:

1. paint a more accurate picture that very few can comprehend (like you just did and which I'm very often guilty of myself)
2. paint a simplified and less accurate picture, but ensure it helps people think about W10 in a more accurate and helpful way (W10 = two OSes).
3. paint the same simplified and less accurate picture as everybody else that is really more misleading than useful (W10 = a single OS).

I went with option (2). I could also have said W10 is really 1.5 OSes, but pretty much nobody would know what such a statement means, not even people with a CS background.

IMHO having most view W10 as a 2-in-1 OS package and W10M as the OS that truly is only 1 OS is the most useful and accurate way for most people to view them.

Would you not agree?

 

[Axeelant]

Well I'm sorry to be that guy but, I hope our current phones won't get Cshell. This way MS would start fresh, and could implement all the goodies they intend to bring in, without the limitations of "old hardware" blocking some of the new features, that couldn't work on old Lumia phones.

They need to come out with a bang!

 

[Sedp23]

Looks nice for the OS but it won't help the app situation. Curious to see the next version of mobile tho

 

[mattiasnyc]

Cshell isn't on any devices yet. So its not multiple window. And you can't run win32s, and UWP isn't there yet, so if you want to run kodi, or iTunes, office 365 or whatever, you can't yet.

So what? I thought the discussion was about where this is heading, not where it is today. If you want to talk about where it is today we can just talk about Win Phone market share and declare it dead. Or we can talk about what CShell and UWP promises for the future. I'm doing the latter.

Everyday people under 25 or so do also often game.
Not nessasarily intensive games, but its there. Who knows where VR may take all that in time.

The point was just what level of performance their gaming requires. How many of the group you're talking about above will go out and buy a $200 PC for gaming purposes? Aren't they more likely to either spend $500 for a console or $1,000 for a PC?

Thunderbolt 3 would be plenty useful for tablets acting as 3 in 1s even if it isn't for phones. You can run i5 etc on a tablet, with thunderbolt; its your desktop, your laptop and your tablet, and that would suit people with more power demands. Device convergence isn't just for phones.

I agree, but the difference is that a lot of people won't run tablets with always-on cellular internet connections. They'll hook them up to a home wifi. If that's what they do they'll suffice at home, but will be annoying when traveling. And that leads to the benefits of having an ARM powered device because of that cellular connectivity. But since that'd be competing with Intel I'm betting getting TB3 would be expensive.

Plus, are you sure that USB 3.1 (gen 2) won't suffice? I mean, not that it matters....but...

I think most people will want to second screen. Its very common, so at least two devices or screens suits most people, unless its an issue of dollars.

But it will have consumer appeal, when price and functionality converge right with consumer awareness. I'm not arguing that its useless, only that its sort of not quite there, and also not marketed to consumers.

Nobody here is saying it's entirely "there" now. Like I said, I thought we were discussing where things are heading.

Device convergence is a significant thing, whether its centred on your PC, your tablet or your phone (streaming from your PC to dumb terminal devices is another possibility with fast enough network speeds). I think its important, for consumers in the future.

Absolutely.

 

[Fava11]

I am so thrilled to hear about it, can't wait for the first mobile to be released!

 

[a5cent]

@mattiasnyc
Wow... I think you managed to misunderstand pretty much everything in my last post that could possibly have been misunderstood. Sorry for that. Hope I can clear things up.

It's a 100% meaningless point to make, that CShell isn't a "killer feature", because the W10M market share is so low that the feature never ever meet your criteria without W10M reaching a sufficient market share.

So really all you're doing is saying W10M has a small market share. Well, duh. Describing that isn't really particularly useful when talking about the intrinsic value of CShell.

<snipped>

Lack of imagination = low adoption = no disruption =/= not killer features, in my book.

No. Nothing I said was related to market share. Consider this:

The iPhone kicked off the modern smartphone industry. It is a good example of a disruptive product. When it was introduced to the market it had exactly 0% market share! That demonstrates that there is no requirement to own any market share in order to be disruptive and successful! In fact, revolutionary products almost always start off with 0% market share.

However, gaining notable market share in a mature market is almost impossible without a disruptive product. Unfortunately for MS, that's the situation they are now in. We're long past the point where incremental improvements or slight advantages will cut it. That's why MS has no choice but to introduce something unique, that is highly desirable for many people, and which is easily marketable. That's what I call a killer feature. Without such a killer feature MS will never get off the ground in the mobile space.

CShell is not that killer feature! You alluded to one of MS' concept videos. Nothing in that video is realized by CShell! That's because CShell is "only" an enabling technology. It's important, but not in a way that entices the average Joe. CShell may very well become an important component of some other technology or application built on top of it, but by itself I see absolutely no chance of it changing the game. That was my point. Nothing more. Nothing less.

In regard to the term "killer feature" we'll have to accept that we define it differently. For you it applies to anything you think deserves to be very popular. For me the term "killer feature" applies only to disruptive technologies that actually become very popular and change market dynamics.

In addition to that you're wrong - in my opinion - about there being "a gazillion other examples" of "killer features" if a "killer feature" also has to be disruptive. If there are a gazillion disruptive features then there's more disruption than status quo. It's simply not a particularly logical way to look at it.

That's almost insulting ;-)

This probably just comes down to the word "gazillion". That's simply my placeholder for a large number. It takes me ten seconds to come up with this:

The discovery of how to make fire
The invention of the paddle
The discovery of the atom
The discovery of radioactive decay
The invention of the steam engine
The invention of the combustion engine
The invention of the transistor
The invention of punch cards
The invention of the software compiler
and on and on and on...

If I had hours I could fill multiple pages. Even if I limited myself to only the last 60 years of IT technology I could still fill pages. Obviously all of that pales in comparison to the enormous number of iterative improvements made to existing technologies every single day all over the world. We obviously don't have "more disruption than the status quo".

While Continuum is certainly a unique feature, I just don't see the mass market being interested in that capability, particularly not while it remains essentially a desktop computer in a small package. That's really not compatible with mass market needs.

Yeah, you just described a smartphone. That's what it is; a computer in a small package with a screen. Is that what the mass market needs? It's what it uses daily. Whether or not people end up hooking it up to a terminal is a different issue.

No.

At least for the foreseeable future (due to a lack of real UWP software for large displays), if we hook up a large display to a Windows Continuum enabled mobile device, then we're essentially using a desktop computer, meaning a desktop OS (W10 with Win32). That's very different from a mobile OS (W10M without Win32), which is exactly why I didn't describe a smartphone.

The average Joe isn't exactly a fan of desktop OSes! Their susceptibility to user errors, the fact that you need some IT skills to fix problems and the fact that they require maintenance is despised! The majority of people use them because they must. That's exactly why mobile OSes are so much more popular!

IMHO people will recognize that MS' mobile devices, when hooked up to a large screen, are still presenting them with the same old Windows they'd rather not deal with. IMHO the consumer market just isn't interested in another way to run Win32 software on a desktop, irrespective of the package/form-factor. For the simple personal-computing tasks the majority or people use computers for, there are simpler and less fragile solutions. These are just additional reasons why I don't see Continuum enabled devices making any big waves in the consumer space. That was my point.

As far as I can tell MS has come to the same conclusion, which is why they are marketing Continuum enabled devices to the enterprise rather than consumers.

But again: What are the valid argument outside of needing more computation power, for paying for more than one powerful CPU? What's the appeal to you in paying a lot for a smart phone and then again paying a lot for a laptop??? Why would you do that if you don't have to?

So, just give that some thought: Rather than paying several times for CPUs, one for you smart phone, one for you tablet, one for your laptop etc, you pay for a great CPU once, and then for "screens" you want (and keyboards if you want them). You can set your preference so that when you walk into your home your main device, the smartphone, automatically 'projects' onto your preferred device. Could be a wall mounted interactive TV with accompanying keyboard, or a super-thin super-light "laptop".

Agreed. The vision is great! The problem with it is that, again, neither CShell nor Continuum get us anywhere close to that vision. Both are enabling technologies.

In the interest of making my objection somewhat more practical, we must only consider that many people will want many of those screens to run software for other OSes (iOS, Android, OSC, etc). In practice, many people will be purchasing multiple CPUs either way. That's where this house of cards comes crumbling down. It can't actually replace the devices you're saying it will. For the same reason it also lacks the ability to save customers money.

The only people whom this could potentially serve are those who explicitly require multiple Windows devices. That excludes most consumers right off the bat.

All that you need to solve the above nuisance - and that's really all it is, a nuisance - is to make the connection wireless. You can already cast continuum to a screen wirelessly, and MS was already working on making it possible to have continuum enable based on proximity.

Agreed. I wasn't talking about cabling. I was talking about the fact that you actually need separate peripherals, irrespective of how they are connected. This entire concept only makes sense if the consumer actually wants multiple screens running Windows software. IMHO most consumers don't want that. If the average consumer only wants one device that runs Windows, then there is no point in separating the CPU from everything else. Most consumers will view that as MS just making things more complicated than necessary. Consumers who only want one device that runs Windows, and who don't require the power of a desktop, will prefer a laptop/ultrabook/etc where all the required peripherals come bundled in one package. That was my point.

I hope I've been able to clarify what my position is.

 

[mikosoft]

1. paint a more accurate picture that very few can comprehend (like you just did and which I'm very often guilty of myself)
2. paint a simplified and less accurate picture, but ensure it helps people think about W10 in a more accurate and helpful way (W10 = two OSes).
3. paint the same simplified and less accurate picture as everybody else that is really more misleading than useful (W10 = a single OS).

I went with option (2). I could also have said W10 is really 1.5 OSes, but pretty much nobody would know what such a statement means, not even people with a CS background.

IMHO having most view W10 as a 2-in-1 OS package and W10M as the OS that truly is only 1 OS is the most useful and accurate way for most people to view them.

Would you not agree?

I probably would although I seem to be surrounded by people who seem to have a pretty decent comprehension when I tell them technical stuff (and no, they are not from technical background). So I usually go for a little bit more technical and accurate explanation. In that case I can just say "W10 is an OS that can run two types of applications" and they would be completely fine with it.

But I get your drift and if you see it's better to put it that way then go ahead.