The Windows 10 April 2018 update has arrived! Get the new Dell XPS 15, starting at $999.99
10-13-2017 10:14 AM
152 12345 ...
tools
  1. mattiasnyc's Avatar
    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.
    06-11-2017 11:32 AM
  2. Drael646464's Avatar
    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.
    06-11-2017 11:57 PM
  3. mikosoft's Avatar
    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 :P ). 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.
    06-12-2017 01:42 AM
  4. a5cent's Avatar
    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 :P ). 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?
    06-12-2017 07:57 AM
  5. Axeelant's Avatar
    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!
    06-12-2017 08:45 AM
  6. Sedp23's Avatar
    Looks nice for the OS but it won't help the app situation. Curious to see the next version of mobile tho
    06-12-2017 10:41 AM
  7. mattiasnyc's Avatar
    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.
    Arquimaes likes this.
    06-12-2017 02:20 PM
  8. Fava11's Avatar
    I am so thrilled to hear about it, can't wait for the first mobile to be released!
    06-12-2017 05:50 PM
  9. a5cent's Avatar
    @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.
    Last edited by a5cent; 06-14-2017 at 11:39 AM. Reason: spelling
    06-12-2017 07:26 PM
  10. mikosoft's Avatar
    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.
    06-13-2017 05:43 AM
  11. a5cent's Avatar
    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.
    Any system that can run a virtual machine can run multiple types of apps. A Java application and a Python application are also two different types of apps, but they are a very poor analogy for the differences between Win32 and UWP. Windows 95 could also run two types of apps, Win16 and Win32 applications. That too is a very poor analogy. The "two types of apps" explanation is entirely insufficient to make the point I'm trying to make. IMHO that's the opposite of providing a more technical and accurate explanation. ;-)

    UWP and Win32 have two completely different app models (what Win32 provides can barely be called that). UWP and Win32 have two entirely different security models. The entire UI compositing engine employed by UWP and Win32 are different and abide by different rules. Of course the APIs are also different.

    With one exception, everything above is attributed to the OS. APIs are also often attributed to the OS, but don't have to be. Due to those differences, and many more, I think it's far better to consider W10 to be comprised of two different OSes rather than being one OS that can run two different types of apps. The differences reach a lot further down in the software stack than just the application layer! If you want your none technical friends to also think about it in that way, telling them it's one OS that runs two different kinds of apps is exactly the disservice I'm talking about here. That oversimplifies to the point of it being wrong.

    Hope I could clear up why I'm not a fan of the "one OS with two types of apps" explanation ;-)
    06-13-2017 10:58 AM
  12. mattiasnyc's Avatar
    @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.

    No. Nothing I said was related to market share.
    I don't think you can have disruption without at least one major-market-share-holding enterprise being a part of 'it', whatever that feature is. If you want to argue that the iPhone was disruptive then I agree with you. And obviously it had 0% market share at introduction. So, ask yourself this: If it, and any derivative product, had continued to a maximum 1% market share, would it still have been a disruptive technology? Of course not.

    Pointing out that market share has nothing to do with it because in the beginning any new technology has zero percent is just silly. That's OBVIOUSLY not the point I'm making.

    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.
    If it has nothing to do with market share then why are the above criteria necessary? Why does it have to be desirable and marketable? It's obviously because it needs to sell to be disruptive in the market. So we're really just back to arguing about the definition of "killer feature" and whether or not it includes having a large enough market share to be able to disrupt the market.

    So, looking at a brief description of "killer" it's pretty much exactly as I interpret the word. ( adjective, Slang. 6. severe; powerful: a killer cold. 7. very difficult or demanding: a killer chess tournament. 8. highly effective; superior: ) It has to do with the intrinsic value of the feature, not whether or not it's adopted by the market (which is required for it to be disruptive), or if it is disruptive.

    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 it applies only to disruptive technologies that actually become very popular and change market dynamics.
    See how you got that backwards? You say I think it applies to what deserves to be popular, but I haven't said that. I merely said that a killer feature is a feature that is great on its own merits. That has nothing to do with whether or not I think it deserves to be popular. The latter doesn't cause the former. You then move on to talk about the technology being disruptive which, again, you say yourself is changing the market, which means the prerequisite for something being disruptive is it (eventually) gaining a significant market share - i.e. popularity. You're the one arguing that popularity matters, not me, in contrast to what you say above.

    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".
    Careful though. If you're going to dismiss some technology because it's iterative rather than inventive you'll have to make sure the iPhone actually invented the tech you think made it unique which in turn led to it being disruptive. There were touch screen phones before the iPhone, and there were internet connected phones before the iPhone.

    Your usage of the iPhone as a "disruptive technology" really only works if you view "technology" as "product". There was a market for mobile phones, and one product, the iPhone, disrupted that market. Not because of the individual tech I just mentioned, but because it was an appealing product that people wanted. The fact that they bought the device led to a disruption in the market. If it had failed it would still have had the same technology.

    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 your own words: What do they enable?

    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.
    Using dumb terminals to serve any OS is the smart thing to do because it gives you flexibility to move between OS. Rather than buying an iMac you get a screen. Then you hook up your iPhone to it, or your Android, or your Win phone. That to me makes 100% sense. If you then want to argue that users are stuck buying several phones, or several tablets, then fine. My prediction is that people will pick the OS that feels the best and use that throughout their ecosystem. So I don't agree with your prediction.

    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 don't agree with that. You would have to explain just why my friends have an iPhone, an iPad and a Mac desktop or laptop. If they only want one form factor for i/o, why did they buy all of those devices? Why didn't they just pick the most powerful one, the one that satisfies the most demanding needs, and use only that?

    I think people gravitate towards different i/o devices because they offer superior convenience and functionality in different situations. You can't carry your desktop with you easily. You can carry your laptop with you, but it's still a bit of a nuisance, and you've then downgraded your screensize. You can bring your tablet no problem, but how nice is it to make phone calls with it? How many people do that? Your smartphone is great; it's portable, it's connected, it can do almost everything.... and yet when you come home do you watch movies and sports on it or do you use a big screen again? Do you do all your excel and word processing on it or do you want a 24"+ screen and keyboard and mouse to go with whatever device you're using?

    Consumers want an experience that is fluid in size and type of i/o, yet I guarantee you they'd love it if the experience also was consistent - which is what you seem to agree on.
    06-13-2017 12:31 PM
  13. a5cent's Avatar
    If you want to argue that the iPhone was disruptive then I agree with you. And obviously it had 0% market share at introduction. So, ask yourself this: If it, and any derivative product, had continued to a maximum 1% market share, would it still have been a disruptive technology? Of course not.
    This is the core of our disagreement and I'm not sure why you don't yet see it. For you a product or technology can only receive the label "disruptive" after it has been introduced to market and achieved widespread commercial success (or something like that). I don't see it that way. If the realistic intent of a new product or technology is to fundamentally change the dynamics of an existing market or create a new one, then I'd call it disruptive, even if it has 0% market share. That was the point I was trying to make. If it helps us come to an agreement and prevents us from going around in circles, then we can also just call it "potentially disruptive". That's certainly the more precise expression.

    If you still have no better go-to than to claim "sillyness", then we're likely stuck.

    IMHO CShell and Continuum are not even potentially disruptive, because they can't fundamentally change anything about the market by themselves. IMHO there is nothing you could say that would convince a notable number of consumers that CShell and Continuum are things they need! End of story.

    In your own words: What do they [CShell + Continuum] enable?
    Continuum = an API that helps software re-composite their UI in a somewhat standardized way, with the goal of helping them more easily adapt to different display sizes (this is not even a user facing technology. It's for developers).
    CShell = A Continuum enabled launcher for Windows

    As I said already, some other killer application that is of more utility to the average Joe may be built on top of those enabling technologies, but by themselves they will achieve little.

    Careful though. If you're going to dismiss some technology because it's iterative rather than inventive you'll have to make sure the iPhone actually invented the tech you think made it unique which in turn led to it being disruptive.
    I would say that combining existing technology in new ways counts as inventive, particularly if the new combination has the potential to shake up the existing order. That's what the iPhone did. I really couldn't care less if a (potentially) disruptive product or technology was invented from scratch or assembled from 50 year old parts.

    If it has nothing to do with market share then why are the above criteria necessary? Why does it have to be desirable and marketable? It's obviously because it needs to sell to be disruptive in the market.
    This again points to the core of our argument. I'd say it's the exact other way around. IMHO whatever MS provides must be (potentially) disruptive to have any chance of taking market share at all. Why? Because the leaders are now so entrenched that MS could slightly improve on everything their competitors do and still get absolutely nowhere. MS has no choice but to make inroads by doing something different!

    The terms "unique" and "desirable" refer to the potential to be disruptive, i.e. doing something in a novel and useful way. Only if those requirements are met can we turn towards the next step, which is successfully commercializing it. That's where the term "marketable" comes in.

    See how you got that backwards? You say I think it applies to what deserves to be popular, but I haven't said that. I merely said that a killer feature is a feature that is great on its own merits.
    Trying to get a smugness award? Anyway, answer me this: Who decides whether or not a feature is great on its own merits? You?

    I don't agree with that. You would have to explain just why my friends have an iPhone, an iPad and a Mac desktop or laptop. If they only want one form factor for i/o, why did they buy all of those devices?
    Nowhere did I say people want only one form-factor of device. What I said is that people only want one form-factor of device to run Win32 Windows software. Completely different thing.

    I know almost nobody that doesn't have at least three devices. I also know almost nobody that has more than one device to run Win32 software. That's where Continuum crumbles. It only makes sense for people who want to run Win32 software on more than one display. That's a very small and shrinking market. If you disagree with that we'll have to agree to disagree.
    Last edited by a5cent; 06-13-2017 at 04:14 PM.
    06-13-2017 02:19 PM
  14. mattiasnyc's Avatar
    Trying to get a smugness award?
    'It's good to be moderator'

    Anyway, answer me this: Who decides whether or not a feature is great on its own merits? You?
    Same person that decides what a killer feature is.

    happy?
    06-13-2017 03:20 PM
  15. a5cent's Avatar
    Same person that decides what a killer feature is. happy?
    No, but it probably doesn't matter at this point. Let's leave it at that.
    06-13-2017 03:38 PM
  16. PerfectReign's Avatar
    Interesting comments here. I'm wondering what - if anything- will come out of the latest Intel spat regarding Windows on ARM.

    I still see cshell as an extension on OneCore and Nadella's vision of mobile first cloud first. In this instance apps run anywhere and the data are in the cloud.
    06-13-2017 11:24 PM
  17. nate0's Avatar
    Interesting comments here. I'm wondering what - if anything- will come out of the latest Intel spat regarding Windows on ARM.

    I still see cshell as an extension on OneCore and Nadella's vision of mobile first cloud first. In this instance apps run anywhere and the data are in the cloud.
    Probably not much of anything but noise if you ask me.
    06-13-2017 11:29 PM
  18. BackToTheFuture's Avatar
    LOL, people got so worked up over this.

    Composable shell, in a nutshell, is another major stepping stone in unifying Windows code base, but not the end all be all revolutionary magic. From now on, it takes less resources to develop Windows for all platforms - each platform still has a separate Windows version, sharing a big chunk of code, including the kernel, windowing server (which is CShell) and UWP subsystem (obviously I oversimplified things here, the OS architecture is much more complex). Any change to this common shared code will trickle to every version. It also doesn't change how UWP apps work, the apps work the same way as they debuted 2 years ago. It also does not mean Win32 subsystem will be available on every platform, since this legacy subsystem is not part of the intended shared code (I believe). Win32 API has not evolved since it was finalized 20 years ago, anyone works directly with Win32 API knows the pain. Microsoft has actively deviated from Win32 since 2000, with the introduction of dotNet.

    This advanced windowing server will support transforming devices, for example, a detachable-modular-multi-screen tablet, much better, by appropriately rearranging the GUI layout dynamically, but most people would still only want a traditional slab, as cost is the deciding factor. It doesn't help Windows mobile attract customer any more than it does now.

    So no, CShell will not make Windows mobile any more attractive, and Microsoft may never integrate Win32 into WinMobile, although I can see a lot of road warriors would want such devices, I for one also want one. What makes W10M attractive to me, is its ease of use and consistency, plus the beautiful and handy live tiles, and a lot of other subtle things, for example, inline controls in notification, Bing lock screen etc. Continuum will be handy at times, but not the must-have feature.

    In order to make Windows on mobile successful, MS needs consumers to buy mobile devices running windows, including phones. So far, Windows phones do not catch on with consumers, for many reasons. Hence MS now targets enterprise sector, where their strength in enterprise services may be enough to entice corporate users. These users, after being familiarized with Windows on mobile and its strength, may like it, much like us here, and recommend WM to their families and friends. And as userbase grows, apps will come, although I doubt that small, regular consumer-oriented apps (payment, shopping etc) would matter at all in a couple of years, they will become plug-in-like services to the OS(s). Sophisticated applications, rewritten in UWP, will be able to run on mobile devices as well, in time. This line of thought has been brought up many times, I just repeat it here.

    Have a good day!
    nate0, a5cent and Joe920 like this.
    06-13-2017 11:31 PM
  19. mikosoft's Avatar
    The differences reach a lot further down in the software stack than just the application layer!
    Yes and no. The base of the OS is the kernel which is only one. Kernel runs everything else including system processes like shell, HAL, API libraries, drivers, user processes etc. (okay, that is not completely precisely true but is a good enough abstraction for the purpose I try to make). In this sense there are no two OSes. Bot Win32 and UWP nicely converge on the kernel. Their API libraries are both ran on the same kernel using the same drivers. Yes, compositing engine is different but the same applies - different API library running on the same kernel. Different security model - that one I don't know how exactly it works so there may be some truth in it but I suppose it is again but a library.

    I would argue if Java was part of Windows that it would still be one OS - with one more subsystem. If it had GTK+ or Qt libraries for GUI I would still argue it's one OS (albeit one with split personality). It includes Linux subsystem and it still isn't two OSes - the whole Linux subsystem runs on the same kernel. I don't really care what format the applications are, what APIs they use and what libraries they call, as long as they run on the same kernel, it's still the same OS. Even the horrible mess of Windows 9x should be considered as a single OS, not a Windows/DOS hybrid because MS-DOS does start Windows, but after that the Windows kernel takes over and runs DOS (mostly) as a subsystem (in emulation).
    06-14-2017 03:16 AM
  20. HBLEY's Avatar
    I haven't heard anything about Cshell.
    06-14-2017 04:52 AM
  21. Drael646464's Avatar
    This is the core of our disagreement and I'm not sure why you don't yet see it. For you a product or technology can only receive the label "disruptive" after it has been introduced to market and achieved widespread commercial success (or something like that). I don't see it that way. If the realistic intent of a new product or technology is to fundamentally change the dynamics of an existing market or create a new one, then I'd call it disruptive, even if it has 0% market share. That was the point I was trying to make. If it helps us come to an agreement and prevents us from going around in circles, then we can also just call it "potentially disruptive". That's certainly the more precise expression.
    .
    Wait what?

    The iPhone if it wasn't marketed, and didn't follow the ipod, could have been a total flop. Somethings is only disruptive in the past tense. It's not disruptive, in the future sense, because of hindsight.

    Goes the other way too, VR was introduced in the 90s. People a decade later would have called it a flop. Now the technology is catching up, it most certainly will be disruptive.

    You don't really know whether it is or not, until its actually happened. Kind of like the absence of evidence is not evidence.

    It could very well be that device convergence is extremely disruptive...one day. It is to some degree in tablets, it might also be somewhat in every catergory of device. Or not. Nobody knows till the fat lady sings.

    I'm not fond of the word myself. Its buzzwordy. I wouldn't compare for example the iPhone, with the wheel, or the lightbulb, into terms of its actual usefulness and new opportunities offered. Yes its innovative, and does have some great uses, but mainly its used for narcissism and distraction. VR is probably a lot more profound in terms of its potential human good (therapy for example, surgery, design). The iPhone was primarily disruptive in the commercial sense. And it was built using entirely pre-invented technologies. Those other things offer significant technological advantages and could be considered 'innovation' at the more human history level, and in terms of someone actually making something new.

    Cshell, at least, and a single OS across hardware platforms is actually new. The iPhone is just a hodgepodge of stuff that was lying around. A hybrid OS might allow people to create/do more stuff. An iPhone doesn't really. It's not really radically different from things that were pre-existing. People had that meme of a fax, a calculator, a radio/tv, a Walkman etc - that's pretty much what a smartphone is, a bundle of other things we could already do, made small for the pocket. For most people, its a swiss army knife of brain bubblegum - an adult pacifier that also does all those things you've forgotten to know how to, like remind you to do things, or calculate or spell (As compared to a normal mobile phone, as it can obviously communicate with actual people you know too)

    I'd argue that the main impact of the smartphone has in fact been mostly negative. Indeed the main impact of the internet might even be, on balance, negative.

    Perhaps that word distruptive in the negative sense - disruptive to the biologically programmed human condition.
    Last edited by Drael646464; 06-14-2017 at 07:05 AM.
    06-14-2017 06:52 AM
  22. Drael646464's Avatar
    I haven't heard anything about Cshell.
    Its "composable shell", a single adaptive shell/UI across all windows devices. So your mobile phone is identical to your desktop when plugged into a monitor, you can change between an entertainment interface and a productivity interface in windows desktop and on gaming consoles, possibly something in between for tablets, and a separate shell for the incoming dual screen Andromeda device.

    It, in addition to UWP, and onecore, is part of the whole "single windows operating system" philosophy Microsoft is working towards long term.

    So you have:

    One core (same across all Microsoft devices)

    The platform specific code/software stack

    Composable shell


    This way, all windows shares everything but the middle layer, which I suppose they may start to unify once the others are unified - eventually leading to a single "windows" that runs on everything, and just behaves differently depending on whats needed.
    Last edited by Drael646464; 06-14-2017 at 07:07 AM.
    06-14-2017 06:55 AM
  23. Axeelant's Avatar
    I'll just leave this here :)

    ea384e05f6cb170cce47d9463c50afda68167cfa.jpg

    This shows connecting MicroSD card to a Mac ;)
    06-14-2017 06:56 AM
  24. chez3makr's Avatar
    Its about time! weve needed a landscape start since wp7. also continuum really needs a facelift if it wants to be relevant
    06-14-2017 10:20 AM
  25. a5cent's Avatar
    Wait what?

    The iPhone if it wasn't marketed, and didn't follow the ipod, could have been a total flop. Somethings is only disruptive in the past tense. It's not disruptive, in the future sense, because of hindsight.

    <snipped>

    You don't really know whether it is or not, until its actually happened. Kind of like the absence of evidence is not evidence.
    Who knows? Maybe it comes down to the fact that English isn't my native language and nobody in my area would agree with your definition? It took long enough to figure out where a large part of the disagreement came from. I'd rather focus on the substance than the terminology, so I already decided to go with "potentially disruptive" instead. That hopefully already solved the problem, so lets move on please.
    Last edited by a5cent; 06-14-2017 at 12:36 PM.
    06-14-2017 11:57 AM
152 12345 ...

Similar Threads

  1. First things to do with "new" surface pro 4
    By revtech in forum Microsoft Surface Pro 4
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06-08-2017, 02:23 PM
  2. Do the new Surface Pro or Pro 4 have a slide in docking station?
    By BrendoTheKing in forum Microsoft Surface Pro 4
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-08-2017, 06:44 AM
  3. Wacom Bamboo Ink is an excellent alternative to the Surface Pen
    By WindowsCentral.com in forum Windows Central News Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-06-2017, 08:10 AM
  4. Kodi 18 'Leia:' Everything there is to know about the next version of Kodi
    By WindowsCentral.com in forum Windows Central News Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-06-2017, 06:40 AM
  5. The Kodi UWP app for Windows 10 and Xbox One is progressing, but still a way off
    By WindowsCentral.com in forum Windows Central News Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-06-2017, 06:20 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD