After running Windows 8 on my laptop for a while, I'm struck by how poorly-suited Metro is to a traditional (mouse/keyboard) computing experience. My sense is that traditional PCs should boot to the traditional Windows desktop and tablets should only have Metro. It would be seen as a nice benefit that traditional x86 computers can ALSO run Metro apps but I don't think anyone will lament the fact that you can't run Excel on your tablet...
I respectfully submit that each and every DF post isn't worth front-page attention on HN.<p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3019147" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3019147</a><p>Edit: The link is a request for PG to blacklist DF. I honestly don't think the submissions add to the overall quality of HN.
A couple of points:<p>* People forget that Microsoft is used to selling Windows that runs on multiple architectures. They had(have?) Itanium, DEC Alpha, PowerPC, and MIPS in the past. Of course those were targeted at professionals, not consumers.<p>* I don't think MS really cares that much about x86 native apps running on ARM. They care about desktop managed apps running on ARM. Why? LOB apps. LOB apps are managed and they want to support ARM tablet users having access to these.<p>* Related to the above point, there are actually few native x86 apps that really matter. Look at the Amazon top 20 selling SW list. It's basically: Office, Windows, Intuit, Adobe, and antivirus. Microsoft ships half of the top 20. They'll be shipping antivirus, so effectively shipping 2/3rd of the top 20. The only apps in the top 20 they'd need to get are Intuit (Quickbooks/Quicken/TurboTax) and Adobe Premiere XYZ. MS can probably have at launch 95% of the cycles consumed by native x86 apps on ARM.<p>With that said, for once, I do think Gruber is generally correct.
I think I get the whole reasoning but I really disagree with one of Microsoft's decisions on this.<p>* ARM is Metro only<p>* x86 is old + Metro<p>* All Metro apps must be purchased in the App Store<p>I understand the last one from an ARM perspective. It stops any confusion if the app with run on ARM. If I can see it in the App Store then it will run. I just think it is a bit of overreaction / greedy to require all x86 Metro apps to be in the App Store. It just seems like a really bad way to mess up adoption of Metro on x86.
This whole "not confusing people" thing seems like a nifty idea, but I think we're talking about a different company.<p>Is there any reason to believe that Microsoft doesn't want to confuse consumers or that not confusing consumers is in any way a winning strategy for them? Yes, I'm being sarcastic, but it seems to me that not confusing customers is Apple's schtick. Microsoft does very well with a different business model that historically has included:<p>WinCE WinMobile PocketPC etc. even Windows Phone 7 has gone through several name variations.<p>Windows Vista and 7 both offered a bewildering range of SKUs.<p>Version naming and numbering schemes that make no sense to anybody. (Although Final Cut Pro X is an admirable attempt by Apple to compete here, Pro having been Apple's traditional replacement for 3.)<p>And don't forget that Microsoft's hardware partners are all past masters of incomprehensible product lines.<p>And can anyone figure out which Intel CPU is which without using google today?
<i>I think the easiest way to minimize confusion would be to market ARM-based Windows machines as “Metro only”. Intel gets classic Windows and Metro apps, ARM gets Metro.</i><p>I don't think this would be that much less confusing for lay users. I would imagine MS will rely on pushing 3rd party software through their App Store, and only exposing compatible software. I imagine this will work better to minimize end-user confusion and to enforce developers doing real ports of their applications instead of just recompiling.
By not allowing legacy apps on ARM microsoft would not have any leverage in the tablet space. If I have a choice between iOS and Windows ARM where the former had a ton of apps and latter doesn't have many, then why would ?I choose windows? It's the same Windows Phone story again. No matter how superior it is to the iPhone, it will lose out for the lack of apps.<p>Microsoft knows this. I won't be surprised if they have more nd more support for legacy API and applications on ARM over time.
Today we are going to have a civilized discussion of a Gruber article on HN.<p>For those that want to discuss the article, comment elsewhere!<p>For those that want to attack or defend Gruber, just upvote the appropriate account below.<p>(If you want to see who is winning, click the appropriate account name. Both accounts started with 1 karma and no other comments or submissions.)