Uh....You lost me :( I never mentioned being worried about any games.
Printable View
Uh....You lost me :( I never mentioned being worried about any games.
Sorry, I must have my threads and members mixed. Too many hours on the PC, I need a break.Quote:
Originally Posted by Niya
lol.....thought I was the dummy for missing some meaning in that post.
No, I'd seen a rant from somebody today defending staying on XP as long as possible, going to Win7 only 6 years from now, etc. and the reason was something like "Windows has become a poor platform for games, Mac never was, Linux is shunned by game vendors, and Android will never be a desktop OS no matter how popular it is."Quote:
Originally Posted by Niya
No idea why I thought that was you except that he'd linked to the same YouTube video.
+1.Quote:
Mobile devices may be ubiquitous right now but they're far from being able to replace the desktop
I can understand Dilitante's concern but I disagree with it... or at least I think it's overstated. Tablets, smart phones etc. may increasingly replace the desktop in the home user market but businesses still want bums on seats and PCs on desks. Tablets may out do desktops for information consumption (really only because they're more convenient) but they're rubbish for information production and management, that stuff's still going to happen in offices at desks, even if it's a home office. So while mobile may have taken some of the market from desktops it's a million miles from taking all or even most of it.
Oddly, if I were to predict the market that's likely to die I think I'd say it was mobile, at least in it's current state. Tablets, phones etc are actually still not great for information consumption, they're just the most convenient thing we've got right now. They're either too big to be comfortably carried or too small to be comfortably used. I can see far more scope for change in that form factor than I can see in the desktops form factor.
I think you've been sleeping if you think this is true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Niya
Market rejection of Windows 8 has been very high, exactly at the same time when users are learning to use alternative OSs on those mobile devices.
This does two things: (1.) it makes users less dependent on Windows and hesitant to consider alternatives, and (2.) it opens a new desktop OS opportunity for some competitor, something Linux never managed because it had no traction in getting mass market mindshare.
It may be far less about desktop workloads moving to mobile OSs than it is about mobile OSs moving to the desktop.
There are some pretty good alternatives to MS Office on iOS and Android right now. Either of those might make the jump to a desktop OS any time and I doubt these alternative suites will hesitate to support them when they do.
The Android-x86 project is at a state now where it works very well as a desktop OS on a system with no touchscreen. All that really needs to happen is broader hardware support (GPUs, some CPU features, etc.) and a blessing from Google. Then Google or a licensed 3rd party could start shipping a retail Android Desktop you can install in any x86 or x64 machine. Or they might release it for free.
This could easily become an attractive alternative to Windows on client systems for both home and business use.
I think you're greatly underestimating Windows. Its a very big shoe for a competitor to fill. Windows 8 may have failed but you're forgetting that there is still Windows 7 and XP which I would consider two of the best desktop OSes around.Quote:
Originally Posted by dilettante
Part of the allure of Windows is how easy it is to configure and how user friendly it is. Linux for example has been said a few times to be developer centric. You have to get low and dirty to diagnose problems and configure it. Its not point and click/plug and play like Windows. Even me as a person with some background in the low and dirty wants nothing to do with any OS that requires this, not when there is something like Windows that automates all these things.
All I have to do to install a driver on Windows 7 these is to turn on the PC. As far as I understand, in Linux, you have to use all kinds of bizarre console commands and God forbid one of them gives you some kind of cryptic error message for getting something wrong. Then there is getting drivers for Linux, another headache. Windows is just way ahead in ease of use.
I don't know anything of Android but it is based on Linux so I'd expect the same wires and pliers ethic. What you're saying has merit no doubt, but I'm not holding my breath.
But your assumption is that people will try W8, not like the changes and immediately switch to a different platform entirely. I don't believe they'll do that. Rather they'll simply revert to the OS they had before and wait for the next version of Windows. Why would they baulk at the unfamiliar and move to something even more unfamiliar as a result?Quote:
Market rejection of Windows 8 has been very high, exactly at the same time when users are learning to use alternative OSs on those mobile devices.
For MS to get pushed out of the desktop market they will have to release several failures in a row. I used to think it would take 2 but with the ever more incremental aproach being taken to Windows releases I'm increasingly convinced it would need 3 or 4. For the average desktop user to move to a completely different platform they will have to feel that they're getting left completely behind and have no upgrade path available in Windows at all. I know folks who are still using XP and they still don't feel left out.
It actually uses little except the Linux kernel and a few low level core libraries (libc), and isn't really much like a conventional "Linux distribution" at all. While it is extremely unlikely, Android could be released running on top of a BSD kernel or something else tomorrow. There is enough of Linux's core there to run some of the command line utilities if you add them and a few more low-level libraries but the average user would see the shell (command prompt) far less often than a casual Windows user - if ever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Niya
Chrome OS is somewhat similar in construction at the low level, with even less likelihood of shell access.
Windows does have a legacy of experience in running on all sorts of hardware to benefit from. Driver support is indeed a strong point, and since Windows has had huge market share vendors are quick to make drivers available if the install media don't already have usable ones.
But the times they are a-changin' and I think you are overestimating Windows stranglehold on the desktop down the road. I don't expect it to disappear at all, just to lose more and more ground over time to alternatives.
You should not forget that Windows was created for the desktop and is still the best tool you can use at work. Tablets are not an alternative when it comes to using a computer in your office. It is true that iPads and Android devices are becoming more and more widespread, but it is also true that they are not used to deal with office stuffs (e.g. to write complex documents, work with graphics or multimedia, manage huge amounts of data etc.).Quote:
Originally Posted by dilettante
The Mac is the only serious threat to the Windows monopoly of desktop computers. Thank God, for the moment it is too expensive to replace Windows. People know you can do the same things buying a Windows PC for half price.
Personally, I think that MS made a mistake when they tried to impose the Metro interface on the desktop version of Windows. Multi-tasking is one of the most useful tools that (classic) Windows makes available, and using apps in full-screen mode would mean to go back to the DOS era.
I am firmly convinced that the best strategy for MS should consist in optimizing the classic Windows OS also for the use on tablets. They should invest in developing more powerful hardware for the tablet market and, more importantly, they should reduce prices as much as they could. The dual-purpose cover/keyboard that Windows tablets are equipped with makes a tablet as useful as a desktop PC (because it allows you to get rid of the cumbersome virtual keyboard which "invades" a large part of the screen) provided that it runs the classic Windows OS.
If there were no differences between a desktop PC and a tablet, even in terms of prices, it would make a lot of sense to take Windows into serious consideration when deciding which tablet to buy. What a shame MS are too blind to see!
I forgot to add that the Microsoft Store (the only place where you can download your WinRT apps from) represents a serious disincentive when considering whether to buy a Windows RT device or not. People are used to buying software directly from private developers and this prevents them from considering Windows RT as an adequate tool to use at work.
True today, perhaps not so much very soon. Android is still associated with mobile devices in the minds of most people but it is already on the edge of becoming the first viable Linux-based desktop OS ever.Quote:
Originally Posted by esposito
Whether you visit the Java camp or the .Net camp you'll find that enterprise developers have a disdain for desktop development that is only growing as they start working more and more "in the cloud." If it were practical they'd make everyone just use a browser at the client, since that basically eliminates all client deployment issues as well as buying them a large amount client OS portability.
When a web browser isn't "rich enough" to do real work sustainably (perhaps the client machines must support specialized printers, scanners, or other less browser-friendly local hardware) they know they need an alternative, but it still won't be a "fat client" application if they can avoid it. They don't care whether the client OS is Windows or something else entirely though.
I suspect this is where Microsoft saw WinRT/Metro fitting in at the corporate level.
Conventional Windows Desktop programming will remain important to the home and small-office user for a while yet but they don't "drive the train." I.e. nobody considers their opinions or needs important. The leadership comes from the needs of the corporate market on the one hand and the mass consumer on the other. The little guy is merely along for the ride.
Again this isn't an issue for enterprise customers, who have a Microsoft-blessed way to support installing without going through the MS Store.Quote:
Originally Posted by esposito
This only hits the little guy, and nobody cares about the little guy.
Enterprise customers buy customized software from private developers, so they need them more than the little guy does. Private developers are not cheap at all. On the contrary, they can make ends meet thanks to the software they develop for and sell to big companies.Quote:
Originally Posted by dilettante
I haven't seen a single Android-based PC yet. Like WinRT, Android apps are usually run in full-screen mode, so they are not suitable for office work where multi-tasking is needed.Quote:
Originally Posted by dilettante
Though it is convenient for a developer to create Web based applications, there is some software that only a fool would use in the cloud or on a tablet. I already mentioned complex documents, graphics and multimedia in my previous post, but I could also add a series of business applications that, in my opinion, should only be installed and used locally. For example, software to store and print out invoices (the risk of getting stuck if the connection goes down should be prevented) and accountancy applications in general.Quote:
Originally Posted by dilettante
Again, tablets are becoming more and more widespread but their use has little to do with office work. I believe that Windows Surface Pro is the best tool on the market, as it is both a tablet and a notebook, but its steep price makes it a niche product. If MS managed to sell Windows Surface Pro at no more than 299 euros, I feel they would become number one on the tablet market.
I think you are in denial about where the future is, but we're already so far off topic from the original question that it probably isn't worth discussing here further. Maybe another thread would be more appropriate but I doubt there is sufficient interest in anything except denial.
My own interest is in hedging my bets just in case things change radically in the direction of mobile-style OSs on the desktop, as they seem to be now.
What evidence do you have to say that "now things are changing in the direction of mobile-style OSs on the desktop"?Quote:
Originally Posted by dilettante
The screenshot below shows the OS stats with reference to today's visits to my Web site. As you can see, 84% of the visitors use some version of Windows, 3.8% use Mac OSX, and only 9.8% use either a mobile device or a tablet. You can be sure that many of these users of tablets or mobile devices also have a PC at home.
Gosh, I guess your web site is not only the center of the universe but can predict the future. Sure proved me wrong!
Obviously, the visits to my Web site don't demonstrate anything. What I meant by showing those OS stats was that there are still a lot of people (for example, 84% of my visitors) who continue to use Windows. I think they still represent the majority worldwide, but I may be wrong. Please consider that I have been checking my OS stats for years and so far the trend has never changed significantly.Quote:
Originally Posted by dilettante
Your statement about the fact that "things seem to be changing in the direction of mobile-style OSs on the desktop" should be backed with statistics. As I said, I have never seen a desktop PC running Android. My personal opinion is that Android was designed for tablets and is not good on a desktop PC, where you have other needs (first of all, multi-tasking).
MS made a mistake when they tried to convince their customers that the Metro interface could make sense on a desktop PC. On the contrary, Apple never tried to merge iOS with OS X, simply because they understood that, when you are in your office sitting in front of your computer, you may want to keep three or four apps open at the same time.
While I believe that it would be very useful to have classic Windows running on a tablet (at a cheap price), I am convinced that WinRT is not fit for "office work". And neither are iOS or Android.
I guess you just don't know anything about Android. What makes you think it doesn't multitask applications? Since you clearly haven't bothered to look into the subject, how is "what you have seen" any proof of anything?
But there isn't much point in talking to you. Rather than even trying to participate in a discussion you just want to shout it down as loudly as you can. I suppose the prospect worries some people pretty badly.
What evidence have you quoted to demonstrate that mobile style OSs are now populating desktop computers, apart from what you think? How many desktop PCs running Android have you seen so far?Quote:
Originally Posted by dilettante
I have two Android tablets and I'm unable to keep two windows open side by side at the same time. I thought "multi-tasking" should allow you to do something like that, but I'm probably missing something.
What is it that makes you think that full-screen applications can't multi-task? The only reason iOS, WinRT, and Android have limited multi-tasking capabilities is to save on battery life. If an (official) version of Android for desktop/laptop would ever be released then it would obviously have full multi-tasking abilities.Quote:
Originally Posted by esposito
In that case, it would be a different OS, not the Android we know today. What need do we have to use Android on PCs? Is it because it is free? Well, in that case, we already have tens of versions of Linux, which are all free and have been around for decades, and can do a great job.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joacim Andersson
I have just read an interesting article about multi-tasking in iOS and Android. You are right when you say it has limited capabilities and probably this is the reason why they don't allow you to place the app windows side by side (their intensive use would reduce battery life).
Applications can be used in full-screen mode also on classic Windows, so the user can choose whether to place one or more apps side by side on the desktop at any time. For obvious reasons, tablet OSs do not allow to do so. Trying to force a desktop PC user to act as if he were using a tablet is wrong. As I said, we used to do so when the most widespread OS was DOS, but today our habits have changed (for the better, I dare say).
Your comparison between the tablet OS'es and DOS are not quite correct. DOS could only run one application at the time, Android and iOS can run several even if they run in fullscreen. I don't see Android coming in on the desktop side in the future but if it did then removing a built in limitation that only exists for battery saving wouldn't be a major alteration of the OS, it would just be another version. Multi-tasking have nothing to do with the ability to put two applications side by side on the screen.
There is the unofficial Android-x86 project that might or might not ever spawn anything official, so that's a good point since it is the only thing you're going to find today that you can install on a conventional PC. The biggest obstacle to using it seriously is limited hardware driver support (especially GPUs) and that it defaults to 160 DPI so text and icons are larger than you want on a large screen 2 feet from your eyes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joacim Andersson
There is a wide range of... less conventional PCs already, using both ARM and x86 processors. Some are packaged as mini-desktops, some as small laptops. And right now they are all using the Android MID device profile so a web server's logs would at best report them as tablets even when they have no touchscreen and only a keyboard and mouse.
As far as "windowing" goes there are Android devices that allow the screen to be split or tiled now, though this is normally a manufacturer's customization to Android. There are also "floating windows" but those are more typically used for things like playing a video while working on something else, Twitter or IM type applications, etc.
Power management is an issue, but on desktop and laptop devices that's less important than on smaller hardware with battery limitations. A larger screen or multiple monitors also makes draggable overlapping windows more compelling since you have the space for them to be useful.
What Android offers over a desktop Linux distribution is a huge base of experienced mass market users instead of a handful of marginal enthusiasts.
Even if none of that goes anywhere though, it seems shortsighted to think the Win32 Desktop will be with us forever. Five years out you might still be running something called "Windows" but it may look a lot more like today's WinRT. Microsoft isn't showing any sign of backtracking on it.
The problem I see lies in the fact that forcing the user to close an app in order to reactivate another one (which is in stand-by mode) is time-consuming and defeats the aim of multi-tasking. In other words, multi-tasking makes sense if I can switch from one app to another with a single click while keeping both apps open. This way, if an app gets updated (for example, if my mailbox receives a message), I realize it in real time, without having to close an app and open another. Only by putting two applications side by side can I take immediate and full advantage of multi-tasking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joacim Andersson
Again, why do we need another version of Android for desktop PCs? What's wrong with Linux?
Well, they should.Quote:
Originally Posted by dilettante
http://icgeeks.org/steve-ballmer-res...of-surface-rt/
You clearly have misunderstood what multitasking is since what you're talking about is the user of the software that does the multitasking and not the computer. The fact that your e-mail client can download an e-mail without you looking at that particular program or that you can listen to music while surfing the web is multitasking.Quote:
Originally Posted by esposito
On my iPad I don't close one application to activate another, I simply do a four finger swipe to switch between two different applications which is analogy similar to pressing Alt+Tab on my Windows laptop.
That's the whole point. I want to be able to take advantage of multi-tasking in real time and, in my opinion, the best way to do that is by placing two or more windows side by side. Unfortunately, the full-screen mode which Android and iOS apps are based on prevents me from doing so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joacim Andersson
I know that Android and iOS are capable of doing multi-tasking (with some limitations due to battery saving), but having to do a four-finger swipe is not as comfortable as looking at an open window. Even Windows 3.1 was capable of doing some multi-tasking (cooperative, not pre-emptive multi-tasking) but this has very little in common with the enormous flexibility of Win32 that I am used to.
Actually, his chart closely mirrors other charts I've seen that shows OS market shares. While you can question their validity, I've yet to see one where Windows wasn't seriously dominating. That in itself says something.Quote:
Originally Posted by dilettante
If you can watch YouTube where you are Galaxy Note 10.1: How to Use the Split Screen Multi Tasking may illustrate where Android multitasking has gone on tablets and phones. The desktop story is different mainly because of larger screen sizes, but also when you drop back from tablet 160 DPI to 120 DPI or so you gain screen real estate from smaller fonts, icons, etc.
What do web browsing stats mean anyway? That's all those figures show.Quote:
Originally Posted by Niya
Web usage is far less important on mobile platforms than native applications are. Who would get their Yahoo Mail, Office 365 mail, watch YouTube, check the weather forecast or whatever else on a mobile device by using a web browser?
Why are people so afraid of the changes that are coming? Try looking at them as opportunities.
These statistics are certainly more reliable than those based on the number of visitors to my Web site:Quote:
Originally Posted by Niya
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp
As you said, they confirm the figures in my chart.
Being afraid implies I acknowledge that there is a shift coming. Frankly I'm not as convinced as you are, not yet anyway. What you're saying has merit but its not as drastic as you're implying.Quote:
Originally Posted by dilettante
However, you did find the heart of the issue. As such my answer to your question would be to say that I'm completely unwilling to learn the plumbing of a new OS as a developer to the level at which I know Windows. Besides, Windows is just a boss OS. Other OSes are **** by comparison. Plain and simple.
Another way to put it is that change may well be coming, but until it arrives....I'm not jumping ship. All the users of my software are on Windows boxes, and will be for the forseeable future. I've also been around long enough to have been through two different versions of X is going to supplant Windows. I have no doubt that eventually there will be an X that does, indeed, supplant Windows, I'm just not convinced that it is Android...yet.
It might not be Android at all, it might be whatever WinRT becomes. It might be something else from Apple, from Oracle, or from a new player we aren't thinking about. The main thing with Android is that it's more open and approachable for one-man developers and in-house developers than some of the alternatives.
Preparing for future changes doesn't mean turning your back on the present either. It's about "A and B" not "A or B."
If you think Windows is king and will remain so, then why is there nothing of consequence in the WinRT forum here?
The more I read your posts on this topic dilettante, the more it seems to me that you're hoping Windows will fall. Why would you want something like that to happen ?
Let's turn it around. When do you plan to move to Windows 8?Quote:
Originally Posted by Niya
When they bring back Aero Glass.
Don't hold your breath, you might turn Blue.
Going beyond windows 8- What does the future of operating systems look like?
Quote:
The industry is quickly moving away from users that are tied to applications on their office or home machine and towards liberating them so they can work with the same powerful capabilities anywhere – they can finally stop worrying about the system underneath and get on with what interests them. In many ways, it’s a case of “Back to the Future” sharing many of the concepts behind the original mainframes, the key difference now is the availability and speed of the internet connections that are delivering this vision across a multitude of platforms and devices. There is a lot more still to come but it is clear that the direction has been set.
I remember when some of these "foretellers" predicted Linux would replace Windows, and it never happened.Quote:
Originally Posted by dilettante
Then, with the advent of the .Net technology, some others predicted native applications would disappear altogether, and it never happened.
Recently, some said that applications in the cloud would replace local software in the very near future and, so far, it has not happened.
The "cloud" has been around for a long time. If it had had the right qualities to replace local software altogether, it would already have done so by now.
You seem to be alluding to a possibility that cloud computing could overthrow the desktop. Well, you might be surprised to know I see this as a definite possibility, perhaps when HTML becomes more evolved. However, another desktop OS taking Windows' market share. Not likely. Windows 8 may seem like a stumble but so was Windows ME. And what happened after ? Windows XP. Who knows, maybe Blue might surprise us all.Quote:
Originally Posted by dilettante
For now I don't think cloud computing could overthrow desktop since not everyone has internet connection like here in our country.
Ya, there's that too. Lack of internet.Quote:
Originally Posted by dee-u
To be honest you're both really just shouting and while Esposito's web traffic may not be the single best measure available on the planet, it's still one more heuristic than you were providing.Quote:
Rather than even trying to participate in a discussion you just want to shout it down as loudly as you can.
While it's true that Windows will eventually be suplanted (that being the nature of an infinite time line) I would say it's foolish to try and accomodate every possible future now because that represents an infinite set of possibilities. While there is a chance that you'll gain an edge on the rest of us by pre-empting the right change at the right time it's far more likely that you will waste alot of time and effort chasing rainbows. That's the nature of trying to sit on the bleeding edge, you're constantly tryingh to guess at what the future holds. While it can be profitable if you make the right guess it's also incredibly wasteful most of the time. Personally I reckon you want to sit ever so slightly behind it. React to what is happening, not to what might. It's less glamorous but it's usually more profitable.
On the multi-tasking thing I think Joachim and Esposito are both right but you're using different language. Esposito is referring to human multi-tasking, i.e. can I sit at a computer and be working on two tasks at once. In that context the ability to trivially flick between two windows and even see them along side each other is absolutely vital. Android does not currently support this but I agree that this is more to do with limitation in the hardware rather than a limitation in what Android could potentially achieve; it will be a trivial gap for Andorid to close when they decide that it's apropriate to do so. Joachim is referring to computer multi-tasking, i.e. can the machine carry out two tasks at once. Android already does support this, I can't think of a single modern OS that doesn't, in fact, so really isn't a point worth debating.
Thanks. That's why I asked dilettante to submit evidence backing what he was saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
You hit the nail on the head. I think multi-tasking is of little use if you can't switch from an app to another with a single click and you can't see the two windows at the same time. Android and iOS have multi-tasking capabilities but they don't allow you to exploit them to the maximum extent possible. Ammunition kept in your pockets when it should be fired is wasted.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
I never argued that Android is going to take over the desktop world, I don't think it will. However new devices and OS'es such as Android will have a big impact on the PC world and the number of users that will use desktop applications. You can easily see that today in the sales figures for PC's. Everybody says that Windows 8 has been a disappointment when looking at the adoption rate and the sales figures. However if you compare Windows 8 sales with Windows XP (for the same length of time period) and factor in the dropped sales figure of PCs then you'll notice that they are in par. So Windows 8 sales hasn't been that bad however it haven't made sales for PC's go up either.
Having applications side by side is perhaps convenient but only to a certain extent and I don't think that is so very important for doing multitasking work. What's more important is that you can quickly switch between applications, which you can on iOS and Android devices. Having apps side by side on a phone would just be terrible simply because of the small screens while you could still argue that it could bring value on the larger tablets, however their screen real estate isn't so large either. However saying that Android doesn't allow this is absolutely false since you can have that. An example already shown in an earlier post is the Galaxy Tab 10.1.
I only find it useful to have applications side by side when I have multiple displays but not an a single display. I can still get notifications about things like new e-mails so that I can switch to the e-mail client when I'm ready to read them.
Saying things like "tablets are great for consuming information but not to create it and therefor it's not really viable in the workspace" is just wrong IMHO. There are places where a desktop is more suitable but that doesn't mean that within an enterprise they can replace a lot of them with other devices. In a warehouse for example a phone could be enough to scan and pick stuff onto or off the shelves without the use of a laptop or something else. The data can be stored in the cloud or on a server within the enterprise but the staff in the actual warehouse wouldn't need to have any other computers but a phone or a tablet. That can in many cases also be true for the salesforce. A sales man might need to create a lot of documentation but that doesn't require a PC, if you're uncomfortable writing large documents with an onscreen keyboard (I know I would be) there is nothing stopping you from using a bluetooth keyboard connected to a tablet. If it's a regular document you create then viewing that (as you create it) in portrait mode also makes more sense than to view it in landscape mode which is far more common on a PC.
Will any of this remove the desktop PC? No, but it will certainly remove a lot of them. With less desktop computers in use in the world, less desktop applications needs to be made.
Forum sites like this one primarily cater to small-scale programmers. That can be a kid in school, a hobbyist, Mort doing some programming as an adjunct to a non-development job, or a small ISV.
When you look at the forums for Windows Phone and WinRT programming here it is pretty obvious those aren't very approachable for the little guy. It can't be the tools at fault, because Microsoft and 3rd parties have done a lot to provide tools. The same sort of thing applies to iOS devices. These all tend to be less attractive because there are intentional deployment obstacles on these platforms as well as a design philosophy that is more server-centric than small guys are used to.
Microsoft gives every indication that Windows-as-we-know-it will continue to evolve away from the Win32 desktop and further into the territory of today's WinRT. We can expect Apple to evolve their desktop OS in a similar direction, and it already seems to be happening there.
Meanwhile Google's OSs are evolving in the other direction over time. Chrome OS never was a phone or tablet OS, and has been put under one roof with Android in the past year. Android gained multi-user logon support and now different user privilege levels in the past few releases making it resemble the evolution from Win 9x to Win NT.
And Android is more open from an individual developer's point of view. That's the main significance it should have for us: you can distribute software through any of several "stores" or no store at all.
So my point is that you should hope Android gains a foothold in desktop computing if you want to keep writing the kinds of programs you are used to writing. Everyone else is throwing the little guy under the bus.
That seems like a much better bet than hoping nobody will ever move off Windows XP or that Microsoft is going to change its direction back toward XP.
Then you should say clearly that yours is just wishful thinking and not a conclusion based on statistics or documentary evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by dilettante
Sorry, but I disagree. What's so terrible about having two apps side by side on a 10-inch Windows Surface Pro tablet? Indeed, you can work quite well. After all, a 10-inch display is not that small.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joacim Andersson
Compared to a phone, a 10 inch display isn't all that small, but there are plenty of apps that I wouldn't be thrilled to use on a 10" screen even if the app had the whole screen. VS comes to mind. So, side by side depends on what items are side by side. In any case, I think you and JA are talking about a pretty minor quibble. Somebody decided that the apps should get the whole screen when the screen is really small. That may or may not be a good decision, but it was made and can be changed. I don't think that tablets or phones are ultimately where the technology is going. They are just a step along the way, so I'm not going to waste any time worrying about whether I can have two apps running side by side on what amounts to a horrible screen.
As for where the technology is going: I don't want Android to take over unless it takes over 100% (or 95% with 5% left over for those rabid apple fans). It doesn't benefit me to have multiple, incompatible, OSes out there. I've lived through that already and it doesn't make the world better. I would say that one of the biggest drivers to Windows success is the history of Windows success. Businesses don't really care about the underlying technology. They don't care if Android is cooler than Windows, or Apple. They want to know whether or not their software will run on it. Re-writing everything to a new platform is not something that most businesses want to do. Therefore, I'll write for what is here, at the moment, not for what I think will happen in the future. If what is here changes, then I'll change with it. I'm not interested in guessing, and writing for, the future which may or may not arrive. I certainly benefit from having a single, common, platform to write for, and I realize that platform may change, but I'm not looking forward to that change. The reluctance of business to move to Win8 en masse may reflect the business cycle more than any referendum on the OS.
About this last point, I asked all of my colleagues why they didn't want to upgrade to Windows 8. To my surprise, I found out they believe that Win8 is a completely new OS focused on Metro apps, while legacy applications are barely compatible with it. This, of course, is absolutely false, but it brings me to the conclusion that, by introducing the Metro interface, MS shot themselves in the foot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
I strongly believe that one of the biggest drivers to Windows success was its cheap price. The Mac had been around for a long time when Windows became successful and, like all Apple's products, it was extremely stable and easy to use. The only reason why Windows prevailed over the Mac was its low price. With Windows, the average citizen could afford to buy a computer at last.Quote:
As for where the technology is going: I don't want Android to take over unless it takes over 100% (or 95% with 5% left over for those rabid apple fans). It doesn't benefit me to have multiple, incompatible, OSes out there. I've lived through that already and it doesn't make the world better. I would say that one of the biggest drivers to Windows success is the history of Windows success. Businesses don't really care about the underlying technology. They don't care if Android is cooler than Windows, or Apple. They want to know whether or not their software will run on it. Re-writing everything to a new platform is not something that most businesses want to do.
Back to Android and iOS, the tablet market is already monopolized by Apple and Google. To get a dominant position on the tablet market, Microsoft should perform a revolutionary "act of courage" and release a very cheap tablet running classic Windows. As I said, it should cost no more that 299,00 euros. This way, the miracle they worked with Windows 3.1 would be repeated, as the average citizen could once again afford to buy a useful product that would guarantee full compatibility with the applications running on his or her home PC. So, they should invest more in hardware and pay more attention to classic Windows than WinRT (the latter being a commercial flop). I see no other way for MS to become successful on the tablet market.
I agree but it's interesting that the 2 examples you picked were Warehouse and Salesmen. Niether of these are "office" enviroments in my opinion. A warehouse clearly isn't and, to be honest, most don't have desktops in them now. Maybe one or two to act as docking stations for the scanners but that's it. The desktop has never had a home in that enviroment so it's not being eroded in the way that people seeem to fear. Salesmen are out on the road rather than based in offices and portability therefore becomes the trump card. Of course, when that salesman decides to write a lengthy covering letter to one of his clients he'll probably sit at a desk to do it. When he just want to check his diary to see where his next appointment is he'll do it on his iPhone - in fact, he already is. so the desktop's home isn't so much the "business" as the "office". Until we see the office dissapear we won't see the desktop dissapear.Quote:
There are places where a desktop is more suitable but that doesn't mean that within an enterprise they can replace a lot of them with other devices.
I think that's my point, it's not that the desktop world is the be all and end all of the computing world, it's not. But those areas that can naturally shift onto other platforms pretty much already have and the desktop is still here. Without another major shift in the hardware forms we're using I don't see a significant erosion of the desktop marketplace on the horizon.
That's true. I actually think there are two choke points for a tablet being used for general office use: screen size and input devices, both of which which could be resolved separately with "plug-ins". Of course, you're probably not going to want to carry a keyboard and pair of monitors around with you (at least in their current form) so you're then really talking about docking stations on desks. I can definetly see that happening but, if it does, we'll probably want a desktop orientated operating system to run on it.Quote:
if you're uncomfortable writing large documents with an onscreen keyboard (I know I would be) there is nothing stopping you from using a bluetooth keyboard connected to a tablet
If that's the case then MS's attempt to merge a tablet gui with a desktop gui would be right on the money because we're not just talking about an OS that needs to work across different devices, we're talking about an OS that needs to work differently on the same device according to the experience the user wants right now. From what I've heard of Metro (I'll freely admit that I've barely tried it beyond an occasional 5 minute shufle on freinds' machines) I don't think they've been particularly successful in their first attempt but this isn't the first time they've released a product where we all baulked at the UI (Office Ribbon anyone?) and they've got a track record of learning from their mistakes.
My philosophy entirely. There's no shame in being a year or two behind the curve.Quote:
I'll write for what is here, at the moment, not for what I think will happen in the future
I think that was a big part of it, and a big part of why it was cheaper was because it wasn't tied to any one particular hardware. Apple built and sold Apple computers, so they dictated what went into them. Early Apple systems adopted SCSI drives at a time when they were superior to all the rest in performance, but cost considerably more than the competing architectures. Furthermore, the PC could be built with either SCSI drives, or not, so the PC consumer could choose what they wanted to use and what price they wanted to pay. I feel that this ability to tinker with the hardware, and not be tied to a sole source manufacturer, not only kept the price of PCs lower, kept the technology moving forwards faster, but also made them more appealing to geeks who wanted to get into the guts of the thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by esposito
I remember buying the best video card on the market only to have it drop off the market only six months later because it was so far out of date. During that time, an Apple fan could choose between two different graphics systems, and that was it. They had the better one and the cheaper one, while PC users could get a better graphics system every two months if they wanted to. Of course, those were also the days when the Mac OS was so unstable that the Apple trade journals all had articles that referenced the fact that changing the hardware on a Mac was liable to cause you days or weeks of headaches as you tried to get your system stable again.
Yep, acai berrys are definitely an alternative to .Net. You could also use Apple, or a Blackberry.
Or just give it the raspberry.
Are you guys high ? ;)
I guess you missed the spam post about acai berries earlier.
Guess I did :(
I know this is a fairly old thread but I wanted to drop a few words about mobile OS'. People who don't see "mobile" apps replacing desktop don't realize that ONE of every SEVEN people on the planet use mobile EXCLUSIVELY to surf the web. In today's day and age, all companies think GLOBAL. For example, take India, this country is not shy from using internet BUT, its poverty is HUGE. Many people cannot afford a desktop and a monthly payment for the internet but most of them have cell phones and THIS is what the companies are banking on. I suggest you all take a look at Scott Hanselman's presentation on mobile web. :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5DxzUaUyws