6 ms·

Well, how about this: because MS doesn't care. It's too late, the code is too large and too old, the developers are too new, no one knows what's going on and th

Well, how about this: because MS doesn't care. It's too late, the code is too large and too old, the developers are too new, no one knows what's going on and this whole thing is a giant rolling monster with parts flying out every second, killing innocent batteries.

barking 13y ago
Valuable legacy windows programs can run on a tablet. From my perspective that shows that MS cares. Programs written for the Mac can't run on iOS, I think.
- devx 13y ago
  Why would you need "legacy apps" on a tablet? The old Windows tablets had 4 main problems: 1) apps not optimized for touch 2) OS not optimized for touch 3) expensive hardware 4) inefficient hardware/small battery life It seems to me that with devices like Surface Pro, the 1) and 3) problems are still ported to the new devices. I don't see legacy apps that aren't optimized for touch and on a 10" screen, as an "advantage" for Windows tablets. For all practical purposes, they are not. Even if you want to do "work" with legacy apps when in "laptop mode" - are you sure you want to do that on a 10" screen? Because I'm telling you 10" is too small for productive work, and the keyboard is too crammed at that size.
  - barking 13y ago
    Because re-writing for a new platform isn't trivial. Because the customers want it. They're intelligent enough to know that a tablet isn't going to be as productive as a desktop/laptop. But they still want it.
    - threeseed 13y ago
      Customers generally do not want to run Windows apps on their tablet. If they did then Surface Pro would be the number one seller.
      - barking 13y ago
        Existing windows applications are by definition best suited to desktops and laptops. Our's would be such an application but even as it is there are certain aspects of its typical daily use that might/would be best served by a tablet. At those times it would be nice for a user to be able to switch from one device to the other and then back again. In fact, requests like this are becoming more frequent.
      - pmelendez 13y ago
        That's a very strong assumption... The only reason I have an Ipad rather than a Surface Pro, is because it didn't exists when bought my Ipad, sure thing that will be my future tablet in my next cycle, and I feel I am not alone. I think surface is not doing it better because it came into the game too late but it is a nice replacement for my heavy laptop and my Netflix viewer (namely Ipad)
    - bguthrie 13y ago
      If consumers want Windows tablets then they have a funny way of showing it.
    - devx 13y ago
      > Because re-writing for a new platform isn't trivial That's not the consumers' problem, is it? > Because the customers want it. That's not reflected in sales yet. If you're talking about the 100 Microsoft fans that upvote and comment all positive Microsoft stories on Reddit, HN and Verge - that doesn't count. We're talking about the market as a whole. Also, even Microsoft themselves barely even promote the "legacy app" thing in their commercials. All they are showing is Metro. But if they think Metro is their tablets' competitive advantage, then why wouldn't the consumer just get an iPad or Android tablet instead - and for a lot less?
- threeseed 13y ago
  Mac apps can't run on iOS because of the architecture difference. It's the same reason Windows apps can't run on Surface RT.
  - nwh 13y ago
    They could. Apple run PowerPC apps on Intel processors. The real answer is that they don't want them to.
    - jzzskijj 13y ago
      Apple ran PowerPC apps on Intel processors. The real answer is that they don't want them to. Rosetta is neither included nor supported in Mac OS X v10.7 "Lion" or later. Therefore, with Lion and later releases, the current Macintosh platform does not support PowerPC applications.
      - nwh 13y ago
        They don't need to. The transition is complete, any many apps had Universal binaries that ran seamlessly on both platforms.
  - chrissmeuk 13y ago
    Err, Windows Store apps can run on the Surface RT and do, regularly. Windows desktop apps could if: 1. RT didn't require signed binaries. 2. You cross compile them to ARM. Don't forget that Office RT is the same codebase as the desktop version.
- mbecker 13y ago
  "Valuable legacy windows programs can run on a tablet." Simply because it (Surface Pro) runs the same OS ie regular Windows.
fetbaffe 13y ago
Reach out and save a battery today! With your help we can change the world. Please submit donation to help this innocent battery to get a better future.
- kmfrk 13y ago
  They could name it Wattsi!
devx 13y ago
Yes, that's the correct answer. This problem today, on tablets especially, also comes from Microsoft's unwilling to use anything other than the full Windows on almost any product they have. So instead of starting something from scratch, they'd rather force all that legacy bloatware into devices that need very efficient software and have smaller batteries.
- JonnieCache 13y ago
  Therein lies the problem: Full windows is the only kind of windows there is. Today you still cannot boot a windows server without a GUI layer. Windows is utterly monolithic. Apple were able to rip the top layers off OSX and ship it as iOS without too much trouble, because it's unix. (They didn't start from scratch.) Windows, not so much. MS have been trying to do it for a decade or more, and they've failed for the reasons outlined by optymizer.
  - devx 13y ago
    I disagree. WP7 would've been a much better and more efficient OS for tablets, and they already built that, but in the name of keeping OS licenses for tablets at ~$100 like for notebooks, and some kind of "unification strategy" (which still hasn't been realized yet), they've also made Windows RT for tablets and WP8 out of the NT kernel for phones. But even WP8 would've be better than Windows 8 or Windows RT (which is 95 percent Windows 8 anyway). It's actually how Apple built iOS, too. But will they put WP8 on tablets? No of course not. Instead, they'll try and push Windows RT to phones, which is the totally wrong way to do it. But just watch it happen.
    - 3825 13y ago
      I thought Windows RT existed mainly as a way for Microsoft to send a signal to Intel. Am I reading too much from Intel's involvement in Tizen[0]? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tizen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tizen
    - nbevans 13y ago
      To the contrary, Microsoft, Nokia and partners are actively looking at bringing WP8 tablets to the market. Thus completely sidestepping the Windows RT issue.
nbevans 13y ago
I would argue that the Windows NT kernel is both newer and more maintainable for Microsoft than OSX is for Apple. At the core of OSX is a ton of legacy Unix monolith written in the 70s that I suspect very few in Apple dare ever touch. This can be seen by the fact that Microsoft has never shied away from improving their OS kernel. Recent stand-out improvements such as ASLR, UAC, TRIM support for SSDs, timer coalescing etc. These are all things that OSX took years to get after Windows got them.
- twoodfin 13y ago
  At the core of OSX is a ton of legacy Unix monolith written in the 70s that I suspect very few in Apple dare ever touch. I don't think this is true at all. Sure, there's always been a BSD-style environment for compatibility, but Apple has never been shy about ripping and replacing legacy Unix-y infrastructure (see: launchd) or about adding new, "deep" APIs close to the plumbing (see: libdispatch).
- dsr_ 13y ago
  And of course the smashing success of WinFS.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - nbevans 13y ago
    I don't really think that WinFS was a core OS kernel feature. It was built on top of SQL Server, so I doubt it even had a kernel-mode component either. ReFS would be a better example. And that's just another example of how Microsoft is keeping their core technology up to date. Apple meanwhile is still using HFS+ which even Linus Torvalds called out as being utterly crap.
    - theandrewbailey 13y ago
      What doesn't Tovalds call out as being utterly crap?
- deleted 13y ago
KeyBoardG 13y ago
This sounds very biased and uninformed. It really doesn't belong here. A simple look at the kernel level stability and perf gained from Vista => 7 => 8 => 8.1 show that it clearly isn't true.

barking 13y ago

Valuable legacy windows programs can run on a tablet. From my perspective that shows that MS cares. Programs written for the Mac can't run on iOS, I think.

devx 13y ago
Why would you need "legacy apps" on a tablet? The old Windows tablets had 4 main problems: 1) apps not optimized for touch 2) OS not optimized for touch 3) expensive hardware 4) inefficient hardware/small battery life It seems to me that with devices like Surface Pro, the 1) and 3) problems are still ported to the new devices. I don't see legacy apps that aren't optimized for touch and on a 10" screen, as an "advantage" for Windows tablets. For all practical purposes, they are not. Even if you want to do "work" with legacy apps when in "laptop mode" - are you sure you want to do that on a 10" screen? Because I'm telling you 10" is too small for productive work, and the keyboard is too crammed at that size.
- barking 13y ago
  Because re-writing for a new platform isn't trivial. Because the customers want it. They're intelligent enough to know that a tablet isn't going to be as productive as a desktop/laptop. But they still want it.
  - threeseed 13y ago
    Customers generally do not want to run Windows apps on their tablet. If they did then Surface Pro would be the number one seller.
    - barking 13y ago
      Existing windows applications are by definition best suited to desktops and laptops. Our's would be such an application but even as it is there are certain aspects of its typical daily use that might/would be best served by a tablet. At those times it would be nice for a user to be able to switch from one device to the other and then back again. In fact, requests like this are becoming more frequent.
    - pmelendez 13y ago
      That's a very strong assumption... The only reason I have an Ipad rather than a Surface Pro, is because it didn't exists when bought my Ipad, sure thing that will be my future tablet in my next cycle, and I feel I am not alone. I think surface is not doing it better because it came into the game too late but it is a nice replacement for my heavy laptop and my Netflix viewer (namely Ipad)
  - bguthrie 13y ago
    If consumers want Windows tablets then they have a funny way of showing it.
  - devx 13y ago
    > Because re-writing for a new platform isn't trivial That's not the consumers' problem, is it? > Because the customers want it. That's not reflected in sales yet. If you're talking about the 100 Microsoft fans that upvote and comment all positive Microsoft stories on Reddit, HN and Verge - that doesn't count. We're talking about the market as a whole. Also, even Microsoft themselves barely even promote the "legacy app" thing in their commercials. All they are showing is Metro. But if they think Metro is their tablets' competitive advantage, then why wouldn't the consumer just get an iPad or Android tablet instead - and for a lot less?
threeseed 13y ago
Mac apps can't run on iOS because of the architecture difference. It's the same reason Windows apps can't run on Surface RT.
- nwh 13y ago
  They could. Apple run PowerPC apps on Intel processors. The real answer is that they don't want them to.
  - jzzskijj 13y ago
    Apple ran PowerPC apps on Intel processors. The real answer is that they don't want them to. Rosetta is neither included nor supported in Mac OS X v10.7 "Lion" or later. Therefore, with Lion and later releases, the current Macintosh platform does not support PowerPC applications.
    - nwh 13y ago
      They don't need to. The transition is complete, any many apps had Universal binaries that ran seamlessly on both platforms.
- chrissmeuk 13y ago
  Err, Windows Store apps can run on the Surface RT and do, regularly. Windows desktop apps could if: 1. RT didn't require signed binaries. 2. You cross compile them to ARM. Don't forget that Office RT is the same codebase as the desktop version.
mbecker 13y ago
"Valuable legacy windows programs can run on a tablet." Simply because it (Surface Pro) runs the same OS ie regular Windows.

fetbaffe 13y ago

Reach out and save a battery today! With your help we can change the world. Please submit donation to help this innocent battery to get a better future.

kmfrk 13y ago
They could name it Wattsi!

devx 13y ago

Yes, that's the correct answer. This problem today, on tablets especially, also comes from Microsoft's unwilling to use anything other than the full Windows on almost any product they have. So instead of starting something from scratch, they'd rather force all that legacy bloatware into devices that need very efficient software and have smaller batteries.

JonnieCache 13y ago
Therein lies the problem: Full windows is the only kind of windows there is. Today you still cannot boot a windows server without a GUI layer. Windows is utterly monolithic. Apple were able to rip the top layers off OSX and ship it as iOS without too much trouble, because it's unix. (They didn't start from scratch.) Windows, not so much. MS have been trying to do it for a decade or more, and they've failed for the reasons outlined by optymizer.
- devx 13y ago
  I disagree. WP7 would've been a much better and more efficient OS for tablets, and they already built that, but in the name of keeping OS licenses for tablets at ~$100 like for notebooks, and some kind of "unification strategy" (which still hasn't been realized yet), they've also made Windows RT for tablets and WP8 out of the NT kernel for phones. But even WP8 would've be better than Windows 8 or Windows RT (which is 95 percent Windows 8 anyway). It's actually how Apple built iOS, too. But will they put WP8 on tablets? No of course not. Instead, they'll try and push Windows RT to phones, which is the totally wrong way to do it. But just watch it happen.
  - 3825 13y ago
    I thought Windows RT existed mainly as a way for Microsoft to send a signal to Intel. Am I reading too much from Intel's involvement in Tizen[0]? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tizen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tizen
  - nbevans 13y ago
    To the contrary, Microsoft, Nokia and partners are actively looking at bringing WP8 tablets to the market. Thus completely sidestepping the Windows RT issue.

nbevans 13y ago

I would argue that the Windows NT kernel is both newer and more maintainable for Microsoft than OSX is for Apple. At the core of OSX is a ton of legacy Unix monolith written in the 70s that I suspect very few in Apple dare ever touch. This can be seen by the fact that Microsoft has never shied away from improving their OS kernel. Recent stand-out improvements such as ASLR, UAC, TRIM support for SSDs, timer coalescing etc. These are all things that OSX took years to get after Windows got them.

twoodfin 13y ago
At the core of OSX is a ton of legacy Unix monolith written in the 70s that I suspect very few in Apple dare ever touch. I don't think this is true at all. Sure, there's always been a BSD-style environment for compatibility, but Apple has never been shy about ripping and replacing legacy Unix-y infrastructure (see: launchd) or about adding new, "deep" APIs close to the plumbing (see: libdispatch).
dsr_ 13y ago
And of course the smashing success of WinFS.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- nbevans 13y ago
  I don't really think that WinFS was a core OS kernel feature. It was built on top of SQL Server, so I doubt it even had a kernel-mode component either. ReFS would be a better example. And that's just another example of how Microsoft is keeping their core technology up to date. Apple meanwhile is still using HFS+ which even Linus Torvalds called out as being utterly crap.
  - theandrewbailey 13y ago
    What doesn't Tovalds call out as being utterly crap?
deleted 13y ago

KeyBoardG 13y ago

This sounds very biased and uninformed. It really doesn't belong here. A simple look at the kernel level stability and perf gained from Vista => 7 => 8 => 8.1 show that it clearly isn't true.