5 ms·

Daring Fireball: The Case for Going Metro-Only on ARM

38 points by amatheus 15y ago

kprobst 15y ago
For someone who tends to be dismissive of Microsoft, Gruber sure seems to be writing about them a lot lately.
- m0nastic 15y ago
  The BUILD conference was a nice coming out party for Windows 8, and it's given people the opportunity to be excited about something non-Apple for a change. If he wasn't covering it, you'd hear cries of "Typical Gruber, ignoring all the interesting things going on outside of Apple."
- gks 15y ago
  I'd say he may be pretty dismissive of Microsoft in general, but I think nearly anyone that has used or seen Windows Phone 7 is thinking it's a great thing. But that actually comes down to the same thing. The reasons Gruber likes WP7 is because it cut the cord with all previous versions. It's a fresh start. Which Gruber feels was needed. I actually agree with him on this point. Now, where the problem comes with regard to Windows 8 is simply that there is no cutting the cord with past versions. It still has all that legacy support in it and keeps getting more convuluted. Even more now that there is support for two different processor families. Windows 8 would be a great chance to slice away some of the old legacy crap. This is simply an example of where Apple has really excelled when they've been in a similar situation. Not that the x86/ARM thing is exactly the same. Apple's was a transition, while Microsofts is in Addition to. But Apple provided tools to make the user experience seamless while Microsoft is making it more difficult for average users to understand.
- rahoulb 15y ago
  Actually, reading this made me think that Gruber is getting better again. DF used to be great when it was Apple vs Microsoft/OSX vs Windows and not so good now it's Apple vs Google/iOS vs Android. He knows how to write about the former, less so about the latter.
- funkah 15y ago
  Fortunately for the rest of us, Gruber's writing is much more insightful than yours.
barista 15y ago
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. Microsoft knows this. I won't be surprised if they have more nd more support for legacy API and applications on ARM over time.
- runevault 15y ago
  The problem is a lot of legacy apps won't run on ARM anyway because they are compiled to x86/x64. This just avoids people buying an ARM laptop and expecting their copy of Office 2007 to work.
- illumin8 15y ago
  I believe Microsoft has already stated that only Metro apps will run on ARM (no legacy x86 apps): http://www.infoworld.com/t/microsoft-windows/will-windows-8-run-x86-apps-arm-tablets-or-not-173498 http://www.infoworld.com/t/microsoft-windows/will-windows-8-... Steve Sinofsky: "We've been very clear since the very first CES demos and forward that the ARM product won't run any X86 applications. We've done a bunch of work to enable that -- enable a great experience there, particularly around devices and device drivers... [W]hat we announced yesterday for the first time was that when you write a Metro style application, all the tools are there to enable you in any of the languages that we support to automatically support ARM or X86. I think that's the key part of everything that we'll run." Why does the argument that by some magic you'll be able to purchase an iPad-like Windows 8 tablet and run full blown desktop Microsoft Office keep cropping up? There will probably be a version of MS Works that is written for the Metro touch interface that will work on ARM, but the performance of an x86 desktop application running in an emulator on ARM would be atrocious and everybody knows it.
  - wmf 15y ago
    There are three types of Win8 apps: Metro, Win32/ARM, and Win32/x86. The question is whether Win32/ARM apps will be allowed. Why does the argument that by some magic you'll be able to purchase an iPad-like Windows 8 tablet and run full blown desktop Microsoft Office keep cropping up? Because people like Office, MS makes a lot of money from Office, and MS actually showed full-blown desktop Office running on ARM a few months ago.
joebadmo 15y ago
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 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.
crenshaw 15y ago
A couple of points: * 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. * 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. * 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. With that said, for once, I do think Gruber is generally correct.
- gvb 15y ago
  WRT your first point, Microsoft used to sell Windows on multiple architectures. They abandoned Alpha, PowerPC, and MIPS in 1999. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT#Supported_platforms http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT#Supported_platforms A big part of the problem was that software vendors did not make non-x86 versions of their software and subsequently users were confused and disappointed that the software that they wanted to run on their (e.g. Alpha) computer either wouldn't run or had to run in an emulator and thus ran slower than on an x86 machine. Microsoft supports two architectures currently: x86/Itanium and ARM with WinCE/WinMobile/WP7. There is no real synergy between the two currently, e.g. the "Office" apps that run on ARM are totally different beasts than what run on x86. The primary crossover is "mindshare" - i.e. users recognize the names.
  - jevinskie 15y ago
    They still ship Windows CE on multiple architectures.
    - gecko 15y ago
threadvote 15y ago
Today we are going to have a civilized discussion of a Gruber article on HN. For those that want to discuss the article, comment elsewhere! For those that want to attack or defend Gruber, just upvote the appropriate account below. (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.)
- lovegruber 15y ago
  I find Gruber's commentary insightful and his arguments cogent. He often brings up topics I had not considered before.
- hategruber 15y ago
  Gruber is uninteresting because he always defends Apple (for personal and monetary reasons). His articles are usually a rehash of discussions better had elsewhere.
protomyth 15y ago
I think I get the whole reasoning but I really disagree with one of Microsoft's decisions on this. * ARM is Metro only * x86 is old + Metro * All Metro apps must be purchased in the App Store 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.
- MatthewPhillips 15y ago
  Not trying to be nitpicky, but capitalized App Store is the Apple owned store. It is app store if meant generally or Windows Marketplace if speaking of the Microsoft branded store.
roadnottaken 15y ago
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...
- r00fus 15y ago
  This sounds just very similar to the route Apple has chosen (though their trackpad tech + latest OSX blurs the lines a bit). If iOS apps could exist as say, dashboard widgets, there would be no difference (Apple probably thinks this is a silly and sales-reducing idea).
  - roadnottaken 15y ago
    Well, there's nothing wrong with copying something that works. Sometimes others get things right first and the best move is to follow. Innovation at the expense of functionality is stupid.
- shimonamit 15y ago
  I completely concur. I am beginning to suspect another release flop ala Windows Me and Windows Vista... if Microsoft default to Metro on traditional workstations. I say 'if' because they're still a bit vague on their roadmap. There's lots of hype in the air now, but once the dust begins to settle I think more people will come to this realization. EDIT: Changed Windows 2000 to Windows Me. Windows 2000 was generally considered to be a successful release.
- jerf 15y ago
  "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..." Counterpoint: The next IMHO-blindingly-obvious step in computer evolution is that your tablet/cell phone becomes your desktop when plugged into a probably-USB-based dock that adds a keyboard, mouse, and real desktop monitor (or more). Tablets that can't run real OSes days are numbered. Having a well-delineated tablet UI layer is good. We've got over a decade of proof that just smashing a conventional desktop onto a tablet doesn't work. But I would not want to massively commit to the idea that tablets will never run Excel. They will... just not in their touch-only mode. It's all about how committed you end up to it, though; in the short term, if only Metro is on the tablet of 2012, that's OK, as long as you can pivot, potentially as soon as early 2013. (Prototypes of this ought to exist somewhere now if MS is going to pull this off.) But if you've written this requirement deep into the tech stack, you're in trouble.
ary 15y ago
I respectfully submit that each and every DF post isn't worth front-page attention on HN. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3019147 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3019147 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.
- portman 15y ago
  I think people upvote it for the conversation. People want to discuss Gruber, and since he doesn't have comments on his blog, they come to HN.
- chollida1 15y ago
  Note: the link above is dead. I'm not sure there is much point in debating whether or not DF belongs on the front page. The voting system and community determine that.
  - ary 15y ago
    I sent it to directly to pg, so he must have killed it. I suppose you're right though.
- gamble 15y ago
  Gruber can be very partisan, but this is one of his better posts, written respectfully and intelligently with none of the partisan slant people often complain about. IMO, this is an example of why he shouldn't be banned on HN.
Tloewald 15y ago
This whole "not confusing people" thing seems like a nifty idea, but I think we're talking about a different company. 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: WinCE WinMobile PocketPC etc. even Windows Phone 7 has gone through several name variations. Windows Vista and 7 both offered a bewildering range of SKUs. 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.) And don't forget that Microsoft's hardware partners are all past masters of incomprehensible product lines. And can anyone figure out which Intel CPU is which without using google today?

38 points by amatheus 15y ago

kprobst 15y ago

For someone who tends to be dismissive of Microsoft, Gruber sure seems to be writing about them a lot lately.

m0nastic 15y ago
The BUILD conference was a nice coming out party for Windows 8, and it's given people the opportunity to be excited about something non-Apple for a change. If he wasn't covering it, you'd hear cries of "Typical Gruber, ignoring all the interesting things going on outside of Apple."
gks 15y ago
I'd say he may be pretty dismissive of Microsoft in general, but I think nearly anyone that has used or seen Windows Phone 7 is thinking it's a great thing. But that actually comes down to the same thing. The reasons Gruber likes WP7 is because it cut the cord with all previous versions. It's a fresh start. Which Gruber feels was needed. I actually agree with him on this point. Now, where the problem comes with regard to Windows 8 is simply that there is no cutting the cord with past versions. It still has all that legacy support in it and keeps getting more convuluted. Even more now that there is support for two different processor families. Windows 8 would be a great chance to slice away some of the old legacy crap. This is simply an example of where Apple has really excelled when they've been in a similar situation. Not that the x86/ARM thing is exactly the same. Apple's was a transition, while Microsofts is in Addition to. But Apple provided tools to make the user experience seamless while Microsoft is making it more difficult for average users to understand.
rahoulb 15y ago
Actually, reading this made me think that Gruber is getting better again. DF used to be great when it was Apple vs Microsoft/OSX vs Windows and not so good now it's Apple vs Google/iOS vs Android. He knows how to write about the former, less so about the latter.
funkah 15y ago
Fortunately for the rest of us, Gruber's writing is much more insightful than yours.

barista 15y ago

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. Microsoft knows this. I won't be surprised if they have more nd more support for legacy API and applications on ARM over time.

runevault 15y ago
The problem is a lot of legacy apps won't run on ARM anyway because they are compiled to x86/x64. This just avoids people buying an ARM laptop and expecting their copy of Office 2007 to work.
illumin8 15y ago
I believe Microsoft has already stated that only Metro apps will run on ARM (no legacy x86 apps): http://www.infoworld.com/t/microsoft-windows/will-windows-8-run-x86-apps-arm-tablets-or-not-173498 http://www.infoworld.com/t/microsoft-windows/will-windows-8-... Steve Sinofsky: "We've been very clear since the very first CES demos and forward that the ARM product won't run any X86 applications. We've done a bunch of work to enable that -- enable a great experience there, particularly around devices and device drivers... [W]hat we announced yesterday for the first time was that when you write a Metro style application, all the tools are there to enable you in any of the languages that we support to automatically support ARM or X86. I think that's the key part of everything that we'll run." Why does the argument that by some magic you'll be able to purchase an iPad-like Windows 8 tablet and run full blown desktop Microsoft Office keep cropping up? There will probably be a version of MS Works that is written for the Metro touch interface that will work on ARM, but the performance of an x86 desktop application running in an emulator on ARM would be atrocious and everybody knows it.
- wmf 15y ago
  There are three types of Win8 apps: Metro, Win32/ARM, and Win32/x86. The question is whether Win32/ARM apps will be allowed. Why does the argument that by some magic you'll be able to purchase an iPad-like Windows 8 tablet and run full blown desktop Microsoft Office keep cropping up? Because people like Office, MS makes a lot of money from Office, and MS actually showed full-blown desktop Office running on ARM a few months ago.

joebadmo 15y ago

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 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.

crenshaw 15y ago

A couple of points: * 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. * 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. * 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. With that said, for once, I do think Gruber is generally correct.

gvb 15y ago
WRT your first point, Microsoft used to sell Windows on multiple architectures. They abandoned Alpha, PowerPC, and MIPS in 1999. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT#Supported_platforms http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT#Supported_platforms A big part of the problem was that software vendors did not make non-x86 versions of their software and subsequently users were confused and disappointed that the software that they wanted to run on their (e.g. Alpha) computer either wouldn't run or had to run in an emulator and thus ran slower than on an x86 machine. Microsoft supports two architectures currently: x86/Itanium and ARM with WinCE/WinMobile/WP7. There is no real synergy between the two currently, e.g. the "Office" apps that run on ARM are totally different beasts than what run on x86. The primary crossover is "mindshare" - i.e. users recognize the names.
- jevinskie 15y ago
  They still ship Windows CE on multiple architectures.
  - gecko 15y ago

threadvote 15y ago

Today we are going to have a civilized discussion of a Gruber article on HN. For those that want to discuss the article, comment elsewhere! For those that want to attack or defend Gruber, just upvote the appropriate account below. (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.)

lovegruber 15y ago
I find Gruber's commentary insightful and his arguments cogent. He often brings up topics I had not considered before.
hategruber 15y ago
Gruber is uninteresting because he always defends Apple (for personal and monetary reasons). His articles are usually a rehash of discussions better had elsewhere.

protomyth 15y ago

I think I get the whole reasoning but I really disagree with one of Microsoft's decisions on this. * ARM is Metro only * x86 is old + Metro * All Metro apps must be purchased in the App Store 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.

MatthewPhillips 15y ago
Not trying to be nitpicky, but capitalized App Store is the Apple owned store. It is app store if meant generally or Windows Marketplace if speaking of the Microsoft branded store.

roadnottaken 15y ago

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...

r00fus 15y ago
This sounds just very similar to the route Apple has chosen (though their trackpad tech + latest OSX blurs the lines a bit). If iOS apps could exist as say, dashboard widgets, there would be no difference (Apple probably thinks this is a silly and sales-reducing idea).
- roadnottaken 15y ago
  Well, there's nothing wrong with copying something that works. Sometimes others get things right first and the best move is to follow. Innovation at the expense of functionality is stupid.
shimonamit 15y ago
I completely concur. I am beginning to suspect another release flop ala Windows Me and Windows Vista... if Microsoft default to Metro on traditional workstations. I say 'if' because they're still a bit vague on their roadmap. There's lots of hype in the air now, but once the dust begins to settle I think more people will come to this realization. EDIT: Changed Windows 2000 to Windows Me. Windows 2000 was generally considered to be a successful release.
jerf 15y ago
"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..." Counterpoint: The next IMHO-blindingly-obvious step in computer evolution is that your tablet/cell phone becomes your desktop when plugged into a probably-USB-based dock that adds a keyboard, mouse, and real desktop monitor (or more). Tablets that can't run real OSes days are numbered. Having a well-delineated tablet UI layer is good. We've got over a decade of proof that just smashing a conventional desktop onto a tablet doesn't work. But I would not want to massively commit to the idea that tablets will never run Excel. They will... just not in their touch-only mode. It's all about how committed you end up to it, though; in the short term, if only Metro is on the tablet of 2012, that's OK, as long as you can pivot, potentially as soon as early 2013. (Prototypes of this ought to exist somewhere now if MS is going to pull this off.) But if you've written this requirement deep into the tech stack, you're in trouble.

ary 15y ago

I respectfully submit that each and every DF post isn't worth front-page attention on HN. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3019147 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3019147 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.

portman 15y ago
I think people upvote it for the conversation. People want to discuss Gruber, and since he doesn't have comments on his blog, they come to HN.
chollida1 15y ago
Note: the link above is dead. I'm not sure there is much point in debating whether or not DF belongs on the front page. The voting system and community determine that.
- ary 15y ago
  I sent it to directly to pg, so he must have killed it. I suppose you're right though.
gamble 15y ago
Gruber can be very partisan, but this is one of his better posts, written respectfully and intelligently with none of the partisan slant people often complain about. IMO, this is an example of why he shouldn't be banned on HN.

Tloewald 15y ago

This whole "not confusing people" thing seems like a nifty idea, but I think we're talking about a different company. 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: WinCE WinMobile PocketPC etc. even Windows Phone 7 has gone through several name variations. Windows Vista and 7 both offered a bewildering range of SKUs. 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.) And don't forget that Microsoft's hardware partners are all past masters of incomprehensible product lines. And can anyone figure out which Intel CPU is which without using google today?