I believe I figured out Microsoft's reasoning behind tablets

[THRiLL KiLL]

ms had the right idea with the tablets.

but hardware held them back.

between weight, crappy touchscreens and dread awfull battery times...

the real question is the tablet a fad?

look at the netbook.

 

[HeXen]

for the record, i have a HP tx tablet laptop. Windows 7 touch really, really sucks on it. 3hr battery life, too heavy to even use as a tablet. actually it was pretty useless, so i gave it to my stepson

 

[theprodigalrebel]

Slightly on-topic question: I have been holding out on a Tablet because I think from a compatibility standpoint, it's best to stick to one 'ecosystem'. For instance, I have multiple terabytes of content on my desktop computer. Voluminous high-res pictures, movies, music, music videos, TV shows, HD porn 😛 etc. If I were a tablet user, I'm positive 99% of the tablet's life would be spent indoors. Hence I would want quick access to all my account, not 16/32/64GB of content that I think I would want to watch that day/week.

How easy it is with iOS/Android to stream stuff off a Windows shared folder? I'm guessing iOS would require you to have iTunes installed (and running?) for it to see your media library? I don't like that approach because it would likely require lots of transcoding since Matroska/WMV files aren't natively supported in iTunes (last time I checked).

If I were to go the Android route, would it 'just work'? What if I toss two other laptops with a ton of content in their network-shared folders (my family uses the Windows 7 HomeGroup feature quite a bit) into the loop? Would an Android tablet be able to easily see/stream all the content from the various PCs?

I figure a Windows tablet would integrate very easily into this kind of scenario. Get one with HDMI-out, connect it to the TV, no need for dedicated media streaming device.

 

[runawayprisoner]

Read a review on that device...gesturing is still in resistive style, not capacitive. Touch is what makes iPad "magical"...Win7 doesn't support it.

Uh... no. Touch isn't what makes iPad magical. It's how smooth the interface is that's magical. iOS is heavily GPU-accelerated, and as a result, the interface of the iPad is easily on par with some of the faster desktop computers... regardless of what you do on the device.

But why the distinction between resistive or capacitive? They are both touchscreen technology. The one in the iPad is even slightly different. It's capacitive, but modified, and there's a patent for it.

Now you're in NDA territory...the OS isn't even going to be released for almost another year. But some might say that nVidia's CEO almost broke that NDA: http://www.winrumors.com/nvidia-ceo-claims-windows-phone-7-apps-will-run-on-windows-8/

I'm not in NDA territory. The fact is that if support was planned and would be a feature, Microsoft would have already announced it. Why would Microsoft hide the fact that 50,000 apps would be ready for Windows 8 as soon as it comes out? That makes no sense at all.

Also there are a few reasons why this isn't possible:

1) It's what NVidia's CEO "believes". It's not a fact. I don't think we should twist words here and just take it for what it is. In which case, it's just something he wants to see, but not a solidified fact yet.

2) There are rumors that Silverlight development is coming to an end. In which case, Silverlight can't be used, and that's a problem.

3) Windows Phone 7 apps are written and compiled for ARM. Theoretically, they should run on ARM Windows 8 tablets provided they have the same libraries. But realistically, they would run into screen resolution issues, window management issues, and... to put it mildly, it's impossible for them to run on x86 Windows 8. Just like ARM Windows 8 can't run Office (until it's rewritten) or Photoshop.

4) I know this one is also not set in stone yet, but there are also fundamental hardware differences between a phone and a tablet. Namely... Windows Phone 7 has a home button, a back button, and a menu button. I don't see them as standard on a Windows 8 tablet just yet, and from what I can see, Windows 8 tablets may not need those buttons at all. But if you have used an iPad, you'd know how awkward and terrible it is trying to run a phone app on a big tablet. It works, but the interface is clumsy, horrible, and super blown up, plus it's cumbersome because you are practically trying to control a giant phone.

It seems that you are still paying absolutely no attention to the original post

The original post addresses an issue with contents and uses that as an excuse for Microsoft being (very) late to the tablet party, but where is the solution? Or do you just magically consider it fixed once Windows 8 is out?

On a side note, what would happen if Hulu also decides to block Windows 8 tablets, as they have done for Android and WebOS?

One of the biggest complaints about Hulu Plus is that ads are still thrown at viewers. You are aware of this, right? No need to consider that for now, thanks. Here's a video of Flash running on an ARM Windows 8 tablet: http://www.smartergeek.info/2011/09/windows-8-arm-tablets-will-run-adobe-flash/According to the above video, you can get Flash working on IE for now...that may change. But with IE's overall share being only 53%, it's a reasonable assumption that some people will install third-party browsers on their Win8 tablets.

As above. Hulu has a way to detect Flash on ARM, and they can just block it again if they are that firm on their policies.

They may not block it on x86, though, but I'm not so sure on that. If they have a way to detect x86 tablets, I think they may also try to block it.

Ya know, I did quite a bit of searching, and couldn't even find a hint on whatever "bypass" you are talking about.

Well, it's for another thread, and it's not on-topic, so I'll leave it at that. Believe what you will.

Well, now you can't blame Win8 for battery life...the Slate was known well over a year ago to have the worst battery life of all tablets: http://www.pcworld.com/article/208543/tablet_battle_hp_slate_vs_ipad_vs_galaxy_tab_vs_playbook.html. I'll bet it fries eggs with Win7, too.

Of course it has terrible battery life. It's x86 vs ARM. Like I said, it's 2W at load vs 0.5W at load just for the CPU. If you can find an x86 tablet with better battery life than the Slate, I'd love to know which one it is. But this is very representative of how it would be when x86 Windows 8 tablets come out.

ARM Windows 8 tablets may be able to match Android and iPad, but... to what extent is the question. I'm not going to go on theoretical values now and I'd just take these things at face value. In which case, Windows 8 on the Slate is more efficient than Windows 7. That I'll admit. But it's not going to magically solve battery life issue for x86 because that's a hardware limitation.

You're right, I haven't experienced Atom. However, anyone not using AMD suffered the nightmare known as Prescott...then the Core2 was released, all was forgiven, and most enthusiasts abandoned AMD.

So yeah...I think they have a chance. Hell, they've done it before...

Intel was in a different position at the time. You are referring to desktop/laptop processors. It's the mobile market now, and Intel has yet to introduce any sub-1W processor in their roadmap, or in other words, you're looking at x86 processors that draws roughly 3-4x the power of an ARM processor.

That's why Microsoft is also having a fork of Windows 8 for ARM. They're hopeless that an x86 processor with very low power consumption and good performance would ever come. Meanwhile, Intel already foresaw their limitations, so they are focusing more on the high-end mobile market instead with the Ultrabook initiative.

This doesn't necessarily spell doom for Intel, but they've practically been outed from the ultra-low-power market with the move to tablets. Just like how Intel kicked PowerPC to the curb many years ago. Because Intel was more power efficient, even though PowerPC was faster. History is repeating itself here.

 

[Slugbait]

But why the distinction between resistive or capacitive? They are both touchscreen technology.

It's the gesturing capabilities. Capacitive is superior for gesturing, and current Windows tablet OSes aren't designed to take advantage of it.

I'm not in NDA territory. The fact is that if support was planned and would be a feature, Microsoft would have already announced it.

Read the link again...strings like "Microsoft is believed to be working on a common development platform that will unite applications across the TV, desktop and phone did not come from Huang. There are plenty of things we still don't know about Win8. Microsoft never spills all their beans a year (or more) before release. A good example is Kinect: it was released a year ago, people kept asking about Kinect for PC, but MS didn't confirm plans for the PC until today.

Why would Microsoft hide the fact that 50,000 apps would be ready for Windows 8 as soon as it comes out? That makes no sense at all.

One reason is that it might not be ready when Win8 comes out. For example, Windows serves every market and almost every language...WP7 serves a handfull. Marketplace team likely will need to have another release as well, and it may not be ready in time.

2) There are rumors that Silverlight development is coming to an end. In which case, Silverlight can't be used, and that's a problem.

Silverlight 5, released a few weeks ago, is in Win8: http://www.readwriteweb.com/hack/2011/12/silverlight-5-goes-live-no-wor.php so yes, it can be used. End of development does not always equal EOL.

3) Windows Phone 7 apps are written and compiled for ARM. Theoretically, they should run on ARM Windows 8 tablets provided they have the same libraries. But realistically, they would run into screen resolution issues, window management issues, and... to put it mildly, it's impossible for them to run on x86 Windows 8. Just like ARM Windows 8 can't run Office (until it's rewritten) or Photoshop.

Before Windows, Microsoft made their name with tools. There will likely be another SDK...and authors can recompile and re-list their apps. Until they get around to doing that, Marketplace can detect your device, and flag ARM-specific apps so that they don't appear when you access Marketplace with an x86 tablet.

4) I know this one is also not set in stone yet, but there are also fundamental hardware differences between a phone and a tablet. Namely... Windows Phone 7 has a home button, a back button, and a menu button.

Not a menu button...search button.

I don't see them as standard on a Windows 8 tablet just yet, and from what I can see, Windows 8 tablets may not need those buttons at all.

Win8 is NT...WP7 is not. The Windows team is adopting Metro and will design it for screens larger than 4", so there likely would be no need for the three hardware buttons.

But if you have used an iPad, you'd know how awkward and terrible it is trying to run a phone app on a big tablet. It works, but the interface is clumsy, horrible, and super blown up, plus it's cumbersome because you are practically trying to control a giant phone.

And perhaps this will be an issue with Win8 tablets.

The original post addresses an issue with contents and uses that as an excuse for Microsoft being (very) late to the tablet party

Strategy and excuse are two entirely different things. The original post addresses the fact (a couple of times) that Microsoft has a very capable mobile operating system that they could have used to enter the tablet game over a year ago...but their strategy is to slap Metro on NT instead. And the core meaning being conveyed: what reasoning did they have for going with this strategy?

but where is the solution? Or do you just magically consider it fixed once Windows 8 is out?

I would expect to do everything on a Win8 tablet that I can do on my desktop machine or my HTPC, but am restricted from doing on today's mobile devices...so yes, it would be "magically fixed".

On a side note, what would happen if Hulu also decides to block Windows 8 tablets, as they have done for Android and WebOS?

As above. Hulu has a way to detect Flash on ARM, and they can just block it again if they are that firm on their policies.

They may not block it on x86, though, but I'm not so sure on that. If they have a way to detect x86 tablets, I think they may also try to block it.

I'm pretty certain they can't detect hardware...nearly all blocking is accomplished by reading the browser UA string, some Flash header string, or in the case of Skyfire the browser itself (Skyfire uses proxy, and proxy gets blocked). So I doubt they would be able to "detect" an x86 tablet.

Well, it's for another thread, and it's not on-topic, so I'll leave it at that. Believe what you will.

Let's see...the entire topic is about content, and that content restriction on other tablets is possibly why MS didn't utilize WP7 for tablets. You claimed you could get past the content restriction on an iPad and get Hulu for free. In other words, it IS on-topic. And since you won't back up your claim, I believe I will call bullshit on you.

Intel was in a different position at the time. You are referring to desktop/laptop processors.

No, I wasn't. My referral was that your "nightmare" of Atom may end up the same way as the "nightmare" of Prescott ended. Jesus, you even quoted me.

or in other words, you're looking at x86 processors that draws roughly 3-4x the power of an ARM processor

And yet the rumors floating around gadget sites are that Intel's x86-based devices will offer competitive performance and battery life. We'll have to wait at least another six months before we find out.

That's why Microsoft is also having a fork of Windows 8 for ARM. They're hopeless that an x86 processor with very low power consumption and good performance would ever come. Meanwhile, Intel already foresaw their limitations, so they are focusing more on the high-end mobile market instead with the Ultrabook initiative.

I included this link in post #4: http://www.extremetech.com/computing/105189-intels-x86-android-smartphone-and-tablet-plans-exposed. I'm pretty sure Intel is focusing on tablets, too.

Just like how Intel kicked PowerPC to the curb many years ago. Because Intel was more power efficient, even though PowerPC was faster. History is repeating itself here.

Whereas Apple's transition from PowerPC to Intel was six years ago, I wouldn't call that "many years ago". We know that an Intel-based Mac runs XP faster than OS X, but I am unaware of any Windows benchmarks on a PowerPC-based Mac to show that it was faster while running Windows than Intel.

 

[MrX8503]

A full fledged desktop OS on a tablet would be ideal, but with current tech, that's not doable.

A full desktop OS would result to:

Power hungry CPU
Poor battery life
Poor touch navigation
Fans to cool it
Heavier tablet

With a desktop tower, those things are a non issue. What MS is doing with Windows 8 is sort of a hybrid tablet/desktop OS to address those issues.

 

[lothar]

Regardless of what Intel is offering, their power consumption is just too high for comfort. Read about Medfield again. It consumes 2.6W when idle. Just the CPU. In contrast, compare that to 0.5W under load or 1W worst case scenario (when everything is stressed to its max) of the most power hungry ARM SoC on the market.

Would heat become an issue? Yes. With a low-power SoC, tablets like the iPad and Galaxy Tab are already emitting some heat. Quadruple that under idle and you'll see just how hot x86 can be... while it's just sitting on the desktop.

Intel actually had a viable solution with the Intel Z 500 and then Z 600 series, but for some bizarre reason, they dropped the ball, very hard, on graphics drivers support for those things. And now Z 600 can only be found on niche devices made by no-name companies, or limited production in a factory somewhere in Japan...

If you think Intel has a chance, you obviously haven't experienced the nightmare they caused with the Atom Z CPUs...

If you think Intel is just going to sit there tweedling their thumbs and let ARM win the mobile SoC war, I have nothing else to say to you.
Intel may not win with Medfield, but they will be competitive by the 2nd or 3rd family tree at 22nm and beyond.

Intel...an AMD it is not.

 

[Red Storm]

I personally have greatly enjoyed not having a Windows machine at home. The last thing I want running on a tablet is Windows, no thanks. The only thing Windows offers me that's better than any competitor is gaming, and then not really, since the games I play are made by developers who also do Mac OS ports (Valve and Blizzard).

 

[alent1234]

If you think Intel is just going to sit there tweedling their thumbs and let ARM win the mobile SoC war, I have nothing else to say to you.
Intel may not win with Medfield, but they will be competitive by the 2nd or 3rd family tree at 22nm and beyond.

Intel...an AMD it is not.

and what would be the point of switching to medfield or the next CPU? is it going to be cheaper? is it going to make designing or making the device cheaper? will all the current android software be compatible?

the biggest problem with smartphones and tablets is they take a long time to design. even android ones. there is a lot of custom software to be written. if intel/ms can make it like with PC's where it's like building with lego's then they will have a chance

 

[runawayprisoner]

It's the gesturing capabilities. Capacitive is superior for gesturing, and current Windows tablet OSes aren't designed to take advantage of it.

Aside from the iPad, most tablets on the market don't currently support more than 2 fingers for gesturing globally even if technically, they should support more than 2 simultaneous touches (the iPad supports up to 11). In fact, even on the iPad, global gestures of more than 2 fingers is not enabled by default.

Most apps are also content with just 2 fingers for gesturing. Because you don't need more than 2 to pinch and zoom an article.

Capacitive is superior only in that it's easier to support gestures with more than 2 fingers, but that's it. It's not the magical fix that'll make Windows suddenly 1000x better.

Read the link again...strings like "Microsoft is believed to be working on a common development platform that will unite applications across the TV, desktop and phone did not come from Huang. There are plenty of things we still don't know about Win8. Microsoft never spills all their beans a year (or more) before release. A good example is Kinect: it was released a year ago, people kept asking about Kinect for PC, but MS didn't confirm plans for the PC until today.

They of course would be working on a single common development platform. You know, there's one that already exists: Flash. But that doesn't mean Windows Phone 7 apps are coming to Windows 8 as a fact. It's just a belief.

One reason is that it might not be ready when Win8 comes out. For example, Windows serves every market and almost every language...WP7 serves a handfull. Marketplace team likely will need to have another release as well, and it may not be ready in time.

Or it simply doesn't exist at all, and writing multiple libraries to ensure compatibility is a pain, so they are avoiding that.

Silverlight 5, released a few weeks ago, is in Win8: http://www.readwriteweb.com/hack/2011/12/silverlight-5-goes-live-no-wor.php so yes, it can be used. End of development does not always equal EOL.

Uh... yes, it does. End of development is EOL. If they don't actively support and update it any longer, then it might well be dead.

Before Windows, Microsoft made their name with tools. There will likely be another SDK...and authors can recompile and re-list their apps. Until they get around to doing that, Marketplace can detect your device, and flag ARM-specific apps so that they don't appear when you access Marketplace with an x86 tablet.

The "apps have to be recompiled to support X platform" worked really well on Android...

Sarcasm aside, even if the tool existed, developers would be less inclined to do it unless there are some substantial benefits to it. The way I look at it, desktop Windows 8 apps would far shadow their mobile counterparts, but at the same time, desktop Win 8 is the majority of the share,

Not a menu button...search button.

Thanks for the correction.

Win8 is NT...WP7 is not. The Windows team is adopting Metro and will design it for screens larger than 4", so there likely would be no need for the three hardware buttons.

The three hardware buttons are almost required to run Windows Phone 7 apps last I checked.

Strategy and excuse are two entirely different things. The original post addresses the fact (a couple of times) that Microsoft has a very capable mobile operating system that they could have used to enter the tablet game over a year ago...but their strategy is to slap Metro on NT instead. And the core meaning being conveyed: what reasoning did they have for going with this strategy?

It's an excuse because otherwise, it's a losing strategy. They are not simply slapping Metro on NT with regards to ARM because ARM doesn't have a desktop mode, or in other words, ARM likely doesn't run on the same NT as x86.

And on x86, Metro is just another interface because there is desktop mode. Slapping an interface on top of another (read: run Windows Media Center all the time) doesn't automagically fix everything.

I would expect to do everything on a Win8 tablet that I can do on my desktop machine or my HTPC, but am restricted from doing on today's mobile devices...so yes, it would be "magically fixed".

Then your beef is more likely with wishing to be able to run Windows on a tablet, and be able to bypass Hulu's silly block rather than with content providers not providing contents for a specific platform.

But in a nutshell, that also doesn't work because with Hulu's aggressive content blocking policy, for instance,

I'm pretty certain they can't detect hardware...nearly all blocking is accomplished by reading the browser UA string, some Flash header string, or in the case of Skyfire the browser itself (Skyfire uses proxy, and proxy gets blocked). So I doubt they would be able to "detect" an x86 tablet.

They may still "detect" any random tablet (not just x86) by checking browser capability and block whenever it reports that the browser supports touch input and multitouch gestures. This is possible in Flash, so if Flash is updated to support x86 Win 8 tablets (and it has been, since I know for sure that multitouch is already incorporated into current Flash), then I'm very sure they can block it.

Since desktop computers don't usually support multitouch, they can get away with saying that only devices with a mouse attached to a keyboard can access Hulu.

So they can still block it if they want to.

[QUOTELet's see...the entire topic is about content, and that content restriction on other tablets is possibly why MS didn't utilize WP7 for tablets. You claimed you could get past the content restriction on an iPad and get Hulu for free. In other words, it IS on-topic. And since you won't back up your claim, I believe I will call bullshit on you.[/QUOTE]

Like I said, believe what you will. Also if my reading comprehension doesn't fail me, the topic is not about how to bypass Hulu blocking, but about how content providers are impeding Microsoft, which you just confirmed.

No, I wasn't. My referral was that your "nightmare" of Atom may end up the same way as the "nightmare" of Prescott ended. Jesus, you even quoted me.

Prescott was only... what? One or two generations?

Atom has stuck around since... a long while ago. It's been two, three generations since then, since the netbooks. There's the difference. And Intel is even gearing up to introduced the forth generation. From my perspective, that means nothing is going to change, at least not next year.

And yet the rumors floating around gadget sites are that Intel's x86-based devices will offer competitive performance and battery life. We'll have to wait at least another six months before we find out.

I have heard that since... 2006. It was always better performance and more battery life, but you know what? Atom in 2006 could achieve 10 hours of battery life, or even more. The problem was that they were mostly in low-cost devices, so manufacturers didn't have the luxury to throw around the high-end components required to make them thinner and lighter (into tablet form factor, if you will). We also had Atom tablets back then (I have one now), but they never took off because they were priced exorbitantly high, and the hardware was extremely limiting.

I can quote real and factual TDP and performance numbers here, instead of just "better performance and battery life". The only way I can see Intel digging themselves out of this pit is to give up and outsource the integrated GPU to PowerVR and the likes instead, since Intel sucks at producing integrated GPUs that don't drain battery and put out more than enough heat to fry eggs. But they tried that, and oddly enough, they don't want to pay PowerVR for proper drivers.

The results? Chips from 2006 still lack proper drivers, and they're all EOL now. Luckily Intel is still "generous" enough to provide drivers to its embedded customers via EMGD, but it's still not 100% operational.

I included this link in post #4: http://www.extremetech.com/computing/105189-intels-x86-android-smartphone-and-tablet-plans-exposed. I'm pretty sure Intel is focusing on tablets, too.

Intel is focusing on Android is more like it. They dropped out of MeeGo if you haven't heard, and MeeGo was in development with them longer than Android even.

Whereas Apple's transition from PowerPC to Intel was six years ago, I wouldn't call that "many years ago". We know that an Intel-based Mac runs XP faster than OS X, but I am unaware of any Windows benchmarks on a PowerPC-based Mac to show that it was faster while running Windows than Intel.

6 years ago is "many" years ago. Technically, PowerPC 970FX (the G5) was more or less on par with high-end Prescott, and with proper optimizations, it could have been almost as fast as Opteron, leaving behind even some of the top Prescott configurations at the time (Xeon 3.6GHz). OSX was poorly optimized, so a number of things were slower.

Anand even had an article about it:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/1702/1

Barring software limitations, the pure performance of the chip clearly surpassed P4 clock-for-clock, and it was approaching Athlon64.

 

[Puddle Jumper]

Barring software limitations, the pure performance of the chip clearly surpassed P4 clock-for-clock, and it was approaching Athlon64.

Beating Prescott in clock per clock performance is like bragging that you beat a dump truck in a drag race. You have to remember Conroe launched six years ago and completely destroyed both Netburst and K8 in lock per clock performance.

Given the very positive things I have been reading about Intel's 22nm process I would not be surprised it it allows them to make Atom competitive with ARM.

 

[runawayprisoner]

Beating Prescott in clock per clock performance is like bragging that you beat a dump truck in a drag race. You have to remember Conroe launched six years ago and completely destroyed both Netburst and K8 in lock per clock performance.

Given the very positive things I have been reading about Intel's 22nm process I would not be surprised it it allows them to make Atom competitive with ARM.

It was beating Prescott in clock per clock something like... 2 years before Conroe came along, though. And they did jump on Conroe when it was available. I think they could have gone K8 if they didn't have to ensure backward compatibility, and at the time, their x86 fork of OSX was not ready. I'd think that it was thanks to K8 that Apple considered moving to x86 at all, and Conroe sealed the deal.

That aside, I'm not hopeful with Intel's 22nm process. Why? Because Intel works out of set TDP values rather than tries to aim for as low TDP as possible, which is what they need to compete with ARM.

Their lowest TDP historically has been 0.6W on the Intel Atom Z500, which is now already EOL, and since then, they haven't introduced any other chip with TDP less than 2W. In fact, their current generation Atoms can go up to 6W on average or 10W under load while remaining relatively the same as the first generation Atom in single-threaded performance. The only thing that has changed is that they are cramming more cores in, and has just now crammed in the GPU as well, but... to what end?

In 2012, we're looking at a dual-core Atom with integrated GPU with TDP of 2W (not max) going against a quad-core CPU and quad-core GPU ARM SoC with TDP of 1W (this is max) or even less. I'm not sure Intel is trying, if at all.

 

[Slugbait]

Uh... yes, it does. End of development is EOL.

Here's a good example: development of XP ended in April of 2008 when Service Pack 3 was released. However, mainstream support continued for a full year after development ended, and extended support will continue until April of 2014...the EOL date.

In other words: uh...no it doesn't.

Sarcasm aside, even if the tool existed, developers would be less inclined to do it unless there are some substantial benefits to it.

You mean, like to support WP8 running on x86?

The three hardware buttons are almost required to run Windows Phone 7 apps last I checked.

The Back button, perhaps, in certain scenarios. The only thing the Start button does is to take you to the Start screen, and the only thing the Search button does is to take you to Search...otherwise, I don't believe they're useful, much less required, at all for apps.

It's an excuse because otherwise, it's a losing strategy.

Now you're not making any sense at all. Here's an example of an excuse: "We didn't enter the Tablet Wars last year because it would take too long or be too hard to modify WP7 for tablets." Because Apple and Google both easily achieved that goal, that would be labeled an excuse.

And it's funny how many people declare a product to be dead a year before launch like you just did. After more than a year, if this is a losing strategy, they should have been able to figure that out by now and not commit another year to it.

They are not simply slapping Metro on NT with regards to ARM because ARM doesn't have a desktop mode, or in other words, ARM likely doesn't run on the same NT as x86.

Right now, this is just rumor that Mary Jo Foley wrote about, although it does make sense: ARM would be Metro-exclusive (consumer) while x86 would be switchable (business). But it would also introduce fragmentation, which MS probably wants to avoid after having watched Android. We'll have to wait-n-see.

And on x86, Metro is just another interface because there is desktop mode. Slapping an interface on top of another (read: run Windows Media Center all the time) doesn't automagically fix everything.

Please review this thread and point out the moment I stated I would use Metro to access content. Thanks.

Then your beef is more likely with wishing to be able to run Windows on a tablet, and be able to bypass Hulu's silly block rather than with content providers not providing contents for a specific platform.

Not just Hulu. But otherwise, yes...I want my content the way I want it and they way I get it from my desktop machine.

But in a nutshell, that also doesn't work because with Hulu's aggressive content blocking policy, for instance,

They may still "detect" any random tablet (not just x86) by checking browser capability and block whenever it reports that the browser supports touch input and multitouch gestures. This is possible in Flash, so if Flash is updated to support x86 Win 8 tablets (and it has been, since I know for sure that multitouch is already incorporated into current Flash), then I'm very sure they can block it.

Current known design is that the Metro version of IE will not support plug-ins, while the desktop version will be traditional IE. I doubt Adobe will be able to discern traditional IE between desktop machines and tablet devices...if they try, they might break the interwebs for a lot of people.

Since desktop computers don't usually support multitouch, they can get away with saying that only devices with a mouse attached to a keyboard can access Hulu.

They would be breaking accessibility laws, especially those that apply to Alternative Input Devices. Plus, plenty of power users don't have a mouse.

Besides, those LCD price-fixing lawsuits that were settled this past year brought the cost of LCD way down...including touch-capable screens. Dell AIO with a 23" Touch starts at $800. Touch-capable monitors may become more popular than 3D-capable monitors after Win8 comes out.

Like I said, believe what you will.

OK. I believe I will call bullshit again.

Also if my reading comprehension doesn't fail me, the topic is not about how to bypass Hulu blocking, but about how content providers are impeding Microsoft, which you just confirmed.

It failed you. The very first sentence of the original post states that I have an Android device...and it is impeding Hulu and NFL Football, among other content.

Prescott was only... what? One or two generations?

I believe the Pentium 4 generation had four families: Willamette, Northwood, Gallatin and Prescott.

Atom has stuck around since... a long while ago. It's been two, three generations since then, since the netbooks. There's the difference. And Intel is even gearing up to introduced the forth generation. From my perspective, that means nothing is going to change, at least not next year.

The final Pentium 4 was released five years after first being introduced. Atom is not yet four years old.

So you could very well be right...perhaps nothing will change with Atom. Maybe it will get worse. Or maybe something will change with Intel itself...we'll have to just wait-n-see.

Intel is focusing on Android is more like it. They dropped out of MeeGo if you haven't heard,

Nope, hadn't heard that. What I heard was that their partner, Nokia, dropped out of Meego...Intel got a new partner, Samsung, to work on Tizen (which was born from MeeGo)

and MeeGo was in development with them longer than Android even.

And that development appears to be continuing with Tizen. Looks like Intel is covering all their bases.

6 years ago is "many" years ago.

For me, considering that the PowerPC was released 20 years ago, six years is kinduva blip. Microsoft having discontinued OS support for PowerPC "many years ago", yeah...that's more applicable.

 

[runawayprisoner]

Here's a good example: development of XP ended in April of 2008 when Service Pack 3 was released. However, mainstream support continued for a full year after development ended, and extended support will continue until April of 2014...the EOL date.

http://forums.silverlight.net/t/239180.aspx/1

I think that practically ends all speculation.

The Back button, perhaps, in certain scenarios. The only thing the Start button does is to take you to the Start screen, and the only thing the Search button does is to take you to Search...otherwise, I don't believe they're useful, much less required, at all for apps.

Then it's still one button for them to simulate.

Or they can take the easy way out: not support WP7 apps at all.

Now you're not making any sense at all. Here's an example of an excuse: "We didn't enter the Tablet Wars last year because it would take too long or be too hard to modify WP7 for tablets." Because Apple and Google both easily achieved that goal, that would be labeled an excuse.

And you're basically saying the same thing: "MS didn't enter the tablet war because content providers are refusing to bring their contents to non-desktop Windows".

Looking at it from another angle, I think you're suggesting that if content providers were willing to, then they would have been able to convince MS to create a tablet version of Windows Phone 7.

And it's funny how many people declare a product to be dead a year before launch like you just did. After more than a year, if this is a losing strategy, they should have been able to figure that out by now and not commit another year to it.

They still commit to it because a losing strategy is better than no strategy at all. Note that I'd only consider it a losing strategy if their main focus with Windows 8 was to bring a viable full OS to tablets. But that's not the case at all. Windows 8 is and still a desktop OS at heart. And many people still use desktops.

In which case, even if their tablet move fails (as it did with XP Tablet edition, and Vista, and then 7), then they still have the desktop to default to. That means they can still commit to it just fine.

Right now, this is just rumor that Mary Jo Foley wrote about, although it does make sense: ARM would be Metro-exclusive (consumer) while x86 would be switchable (business). But it would also introduce fragmentation, which MS probably wants to avoid after having watched Android. We'll have to wait-n-see.

Nope, not a rumor.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/245370/no_desktop_for_armbased_windows_8_devices_report_says.html

Please review this thread and point out the moment I stated I would use Metro to access content. Thanks.

It's your wish, it's not MS' actual strategy.

It failed you. The very first sentence of the original post states that I have an Android device...and it is impeding Hulu and NFL Football, among other content.

Are we discussing MS' strategy or are we discussing what you wish they should be doing? Sorry, I just want to get that clear.

I believe the Pentium 4 generation had four families: Willamette, Northwood, Gallatin and Prescott.The final Pentium 4 was released five years after first being introduced. Atom is not yet four years old.

That means Atom will suck for at least another 2 years before we see a possible change, if and only if history repeats itself.

And that's exactly what I mean. It'll be the same for the next year even if you are right. And assuming you are right, it'll still suck the year after. By which time, Apple and Google have had a good... 4-year run with their tablets.

Nope, hadn't heard that. What I heard was that their partner, Nokia, dropped out of Meego...Intel got a new partner, Samsung, to work on Tizen (which was born from MeeGo)And that development appears to be continuing with Tizen. Looks like Intel is covering all their bases.

Yep. Good information. Thanks. In which case, it means just what you said: Intel is covering all their bases. That doesn't mean they are focusing specifically on phones or tablets, because last I heard, Linux wasn't just meant to run on phones or tablets.

And this means nothing for their hardware innovation since they still have yet to come out with a viable tablet CPU, or actually, they did, but it's not comparable to what Qualcomm, Apple, TI and nVidia can do with ARM.

 

[Slugbait]

http://forums.silverlight.net/t/239180.aspx/1

I think that practically ends all speculation.

The first sentence: "Whilst it’s great to see that they didn’t totally abandon the concept of Silverlight in Windows 8"

I'm certain that definitely ends all speculation. You specifically said Silverlight can't be used...but it will be there, and I'd wager it will be used.

Then it's still one button for them to simulate.

Not likely...they'll probably simulate all three, plus add several (or many) more to enhance navigation. Gotta have a one-tap way to get back to the main screen, and MS is so heavily integrating Bing in all of their products...they won't stop at the Back button.

And you're basically saying the same thing: "MS didn't enter the tablet war because content providers are refusing to bring their contents to non-desktop Windows".

No. It's because content owners are not allowing their material to be provided to mobile operating systems. Again, go back to the initial post and read the first line.

Looking at it from another angle, I think you're suggesting that if content providers were willing to, then they would have been able to convince MS to create a tablet version of Windows Phone 7.

Your thinking is incorrect. I even wasted a few brain cells trying to figure out how you came up with that angle.

They still commit to it because a losing strategy is better than no strategy at all.

Did you know that MS has a mobile operating system that could easily be modified to run on a tablet? They released it well over a year ago, and they've already released a major point-release for it since then. The Windows team, and the Board of Directors, knew all about it. If Win8 is, as you say, a losing strategy, then MS does have another viable strategy for tablets...not "no strategy at all".

Note that I'd only consider it a losing strategy if their main focus with Windows 8 was to bring a viable full OS to tablets. But that's not the case at all. Windows 8 is and still a desktop OS at heart. And many people still use desktops.

In which case, even if their tablet move fails (as it did with XP Tablet edition, and Vista, and then 7), then they still have the desktop to default to. That means they can still commit to it just fine.

And thus lose the Tablet Wars while they have a perfectly good mobile OS just sitting in a drawer. See how this works now?

Nope, not a rumor.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/245370/no_desktop_for_armbased_windows_8_devices_report_says.html

Thanks, I read it. First paragraph, first sentence: "...according to online reports." Fifth paragraph, first sentence: "If Thurrott is correct, this change in Microsoft's plans is relatively new. Number of times MS confirms in article: zero. Dictionary.com, first definition: (noun): a story or statement in general circulation without confirmation or certainty as to facts

Yup, it's a rumor.

It's your wish, it's not MS' actual strategy.

It's not a wish: Microsoft has already said we can turn off Metro.

Are we discussing MS' strategy or are we discussing what you wish they should be doing? Sorry, I just want to get that clear.

For this particular instance, you stated how Metro wouldn't automagically fix everything. I never mentioned using Metro on an x86 Win8 tablet when it comes to accessing content. In fact, I assume that accessing content with Metro on a tablet will have the same result as accessing content with Metro on WP7.

You've trailed off on so many tangents, it's sometimes difficult to keep up with you. This instance looks like one of those.

That means Atom will suck for at least another 2 years before we see a possible change, if and only if history repeats itself.

And that's exactly what I mean. It'll be the same for the next year even if you are right. And assuming you are right, it'll still suck the year after. By which time, Apple and Google have had a good... 4-year run with their tablets.

Well, I'm not claiming Intel has a silver bullet. They did have one a few years ago with Conroe, so we know they can sometimes surprise us.

...it means just what you said: Intel is covering all their bases. That doesn't mean they are focusing specifically on phones or tablets, because last I heard, Linux wasn't just meant to run on phones or tablets.

I never said they were focusing exclusively on phones or tablets, which is how you're making this sound.

But everything we're reading about Intel these days is that they have a specific focus on phones or tablets. They would be foolish not to.

 

[runawayprisoner]

The first sentence: "Whilst it’s great to see that they didn’t totally abandon the concept of Silverlight in Windows 8"

I'm certain that definitely ends all speculation. You specifically said Silverlight can't be used...but it will be there, and I'd wager it will be used.

If it doesn't appear on ARM Win 8 tablets, then it can't be used...

If it does appear, but in a different form, then as per the post, it's really off-putting to current developers, which are already little in base. In any case, I think this is just nitpicking. Whether Silverlight appears on Win 8 or not, Microsoft would still have a solution for developers to write their apps on. The question is if they'd be able to attract more developers than what following they currently have for WinPhone 7.

Not likely...they'll probably simulate all three, plus add several (or many) more to enhance navigation. Gotta have a one-tap way to get back to the main screen, and MS is so heavily integrating Bing in all of their products...they won't stop at the Back button.

That'll just cluster the interface even more. They want just the app running, not a whole Windows Phone 7 OS.

No. It's because content owners are not allowing their material to be provided to mobile operating systems. Again, go back to the initial post and read the first line.

I think you are missing something critical there. Content owners do allow their material on select mobile operating systems provided the viewer pays for it.

All I'm getting here is that you are trying to get Hulu and NFL on your tablets free of charge, and you wish Windows 8 on tablets would allow you to do that.

Did you know that MS has a mobile operating system that could easily be modified to run on a tablet? They released it well over a year ago, and they've already released a major point-release for it since then. The Windows team, and the Board of Directors, knew all about it. If Win8 is, as you say, a losing strategy, then MS does have another viable strategy for tablets...not "no strategy at all".

This is as good as saying Microsoft can just say it and we'll have full Windows 7 on a phone.

I don't think it's so easy as "modifying" their existing mobile operating system. If they could do so, they would have gone for it already and not try to make Windows 8 tablet-friendly at all.

Thanks, I read it. First paragraph, first sentence: "...according to online reports." Fifth paragraph, first sentence: "If Thurrott is correct, this change in Microsoft's plans is relatively new. Number of times MS confirms in article: zero. Dictionary.com, first definition: (noun): a story or statement in general circulation without confirmation or certainty as to facts

Please read the rest:

But as of this week the plan internally at Microsoft is for ARM-based versions of Windows 8 not to include the Windows desktop and not to have any facility for running desktop apps.

And here's the first definition of report. I think the article specifically used the word online report and not online rumor for a reason.

an account or statement describing in detail an event, situation, or the like, usually as the result of observation, inquiry, etc.: a report on the peace conference; a medical report on the patient.

It's not a wish: Microsoft has already said we can turn off Metro.

Not on ARM:

http://www.winrumors.com/microsoft-...ndows-8-arm-in-a-unique-way-different-naming/

All ARM apps are going to be in Metro, or in other words, Metro cannot be turned off in ARM.

For this particular instance, you stated how Metro wouldn't automagically fix everything. I never mentioned using Metro on an x86 Win8 tablet when it comes to accessing content. In fact, I assume that accessing content with Metro on a tablet will have the same result as accessing content with Metro on WP7.

If it's the same result, that means... no Hulu, just like WP7. I think you're going back to square 1 here.

You've trailed off on so many tangents, it's sometimes difficult to keep up with you. This instance looks like one of those.

I'm merely asserting the topic of the discussion so that I don't trail off.

Well, I'm not claiming Intel has a silver bullet. They did have one a few years ago with Conroe, so we know they can sometimes surprise us.I never said they were focusing exclusively on phones or tablets, which is how you're making this sound.

You're basically saying they must be able to do it again, and all I'm trying to say is that historically, they haven't been able to do this.

Conroe was on desktop. That was a completely different situation... is what I'm trying to say.

But everything we're reading about Intel these days is that they have a specific focus on phones or tablets. They would be foolish not to.

I don't think that's the case at all. Intel has the Ultrabook initiative and their desktop processors as well. Ultrabook is where they can charge OEMs for high-margin mid-range performance chips with low power, all the while they hold in their hands a trump card against AMD. Phones and tablets are not the only successful markets today, and even if Intel wants to jump in, they're facing stiff competition from Apple, Qualcomm, TI, and perhaps Samsung as well. Plus it's a low-end market, so they're going to have to settle for low-margin, which doesn't really bring them a lot of money. It actually makes sense for them to not jump in the phones and tablets market until there is a viable OS solution.

And then we go back to Win 8...

 

[micrometers]

and what about the 1990's when PC really took off? no one was competing with Wintel. everyone was trying to sell expensive products like workstations. i never saw SPARC based computers at CompUSA. and that's the point, Wintel started out cheap and moved up. it's an old business story.

ARM based devices are following the same path. they are starting out cheaper and weaker than the prevelant tech and will move up. Intel/MS take a big percentage of the revenue of your average PC these days. At some point in the near future ARM will become powerful enough to be used as a desktop/laptop for most tasks but it will offer a higher profit margin and a lot of OEM's will start to dump Intel. ARM may not be powerful enough to pair up with 2 giant graphics cards but most people don't care. they want a box to do some simple tasks

it's a common business strategy to take over a market by starting at the bottom and working your way up the profit margin chain. intel and microsoft aren't the only ones to have done it. IBM lost the mainframe business to cheap deskstops and servers and now we are back where we started

Interesting. But I do think that you will have a hard time transitioning from laptops to an ARM android/ios model. Unless you make netbook-like devices that go at like $250

 

[poofyhairguy]

All I 'm getting here is that you are trying to get Hulu and NFL on your tablets free of charge, and you wish Windows 8 on tablets would allow you to do that.

Android Tablet + Flash + Icefilms + firstrowsports.TV = everything you want

Another method is hacked Flash (to screw Hulu) and pay-for NFL Direct Ticket. Its mobile app works fine.


If content providers are going to be dicks and artificially restrict mobile devices then screw playing fair.

You don't need Windows to fight back.

 

[Slugbait]

If it doesn't appear on ARM Win 8 tablets, then it can't be used...

I know, I know...you won't provide anything to back up this statement. I get it.

If it does appear, but in a different form, then as per the post, it's really off-putting to current developers, which are already little in base.

I know, I know, achieving 50K apps in their store faster than Android could do isn't of any concern to you.

In any case, I think this is just nitpicking. Whether Silverlight appears on Win 8 or not

Not nitpicking, but confirmed...unlike your "it's not a rumor" posts

...Microsoft would still have a solution for developers to write their apps on. The question is if they'd be able to attract more developers than what following they currently have for WinPhone 7.

Nah, the question is if they'd be able to get more apps from the developers already on board, and THEN attract more developers.

I think you are missing something critical there. Content owners do allow their material on select mobile operating systems provided the viewer pays for it.

I am SO releived to hear that!!!! Thank you! Could you please call Verizon, remind them that I own one of their devices, that I'm paying for 4G service, and yet NFL Mobile doesn't work? I'd really 'preciate that. Thanks. While you're at it, could you call Hulu, tell them that I would really, really, really like to pay for their service on my WP7 devices? Thanks. Oh, and while I realize that it wouldn't cost me any money, could you let Pandora know that I would like a WP7 app...I mean, they DO have an app for every other mobile device...just not WP7, and they have no plans for it. Thanks again!

All I'm getting here is that you are trying to get Hulu and NFL on your tablets free of charge, and you wish Windows 8 on tablets would allow you to do that.

Already paying for 4G, which give me NFL for FREE via Verizon!!! Just not getting it, that's all.

This is as good as saying Microsoft can just say it and we'll have full Windows 7 on a phone.

Kinduva moronic statement, but you are aware of the rumors that WP8 will be NT-based, right?

I don't think it's so easy as "modifying" their existing mobile operating system. If they could do so, they would have gone for it already and not try to make Windows 8 tablet-friendly at all.

Apple did it. Google did it.

Oh wait...weren't we previously discussing why MS didn't go for it? Wasn't that the original topic of the thread?

Are you keeping track at all?

Please read the rest:

For Christ's sake, you really don't know the definition of "rumor" do you? Even after it's explained to you, you still think black characters on a white background makes some sort of a point.

And here's the first definition of report. I think the article specifically used the word online report and not online rumor for a reason.

HAHAHA! Report! HA! Report! That's a good one. LOLAYNWY!

I'd like to report that you are an idiot.

Since it is a report, this cannot be a rumor.

Not on ARM:
All ARM apps are going to be in Metro, or in other words, Metro cannot be turned off in ARM.

Please review this thread and point out the part where I said I would purchase an ARM tablet.

I'll even give you a reason not to waste your time doing so: there was a reply I made to you where I already stated that current rumors are that ARM would be Metro-exclusive (consumer). Use Find On Page if that helps...

If it's the same result, that means... no Hulu, just like WP7. I think you're going back to square 1 here.

Uh, no. You said Metro wouldn't automagically fix everything everything, remember? I never said I would use Metro, remember? I mean, it was all in the SAME QUOTE that you used, remember?

I'm merely asserting the topic of the discussion so that I don't trail off.

Actually, you should invest in breadcrumb stock. You can't even keep track of what was said in quotes you're using.

You're basically saying they must be able to do it again, and all I'm trying to say is that historically, they haven't been able to do this.

No, YOU are saying they "must" do this again, with all the TDP crap and whatnot that you've spewed all over this thread. I only said they could do it...and historically, they HAVE been able to do it.

Conroe was on desktop. That was a completely different situation... is what I'm trying to say.

That doesn't mean a thing. Conroe is a CPU. Atom is a CPU. Intel makes CPUs.

I don't think that's the case at all.

Then you haven't been paying any attention whatsoever to the mobile landscape over the last few months. I provided a link to show they have a roadmap, but you obviously didn't click it. Oh wait...I just realized I provided that link TWICE! Ha, jokes on me...should have known you wouldn't have clicked it.

Intel has the Ultrabook initiative and their desktop processors as well. Ultrabook is where they can charge OEMs for high-margin mid-range performance chips with low power, all the while they hold in their hands a trump card against AMD. Phones and tablets are not the only successful markets today, and even if Intel wants to jump in, they're facing stiff competition from Apple, Qualcomm, TI, and perhaps Samsung as well. Plus it's a low-end market, so they're going to have to settle for low-margin, which doesn't really bring them a lot of money. It actually makes sense for them to not jump in the phones and tablets market until there is a viable OS solution.

Can you put that into a complicated spreadsheet with pivots and everything? SteveB would ADORE YOU and hire you on the spot.

OK, let's be serious...how much bad press do you think Intel would get if they said, "Um, ya know, we thought about it and decided...well, we really don't want to get into that whole tablet thing right now. Gonna cost us a lot of money! No, we're gonna go ahead and give the competition another year or two more of a head start beyond what they already have. But don't worry, we'll destroy them when we feel like it. Thanks for coming to our press release, we have lovely parting gifts."

A little bad press? More than a little? Maybe a tsunami of bad press? But it wouldn't hurt their reputation, right?

Get real. They're in it.

 

[alent1234]

Interesting. But I do think that you will have a hard time transitioning from laptops to an ARM android/ios model. Unless you make netbook-like devices that go at like $250

I think that if Intel and MS keep on being morons at some point in the next 5-10 years an ARM CPU maker will come out with a nice CPU to challenge Intel. By that time there will be hundreds of millions of ARM devices in people's hands with a huge software catalog.

a $500 PC about half the price goes to intel and microsoft. if someone can make a PC and keep more of the money by using different hardware they will do it

same thing happened with Intel vs everyone else. P2 was nice. P3 was better. The Pentium Pro was a killer CPU and by the time it was renamed Xeon it was all over for Intel's high end competitors

 

[ViRGE]

I am SO releived to hear that!!!! Thank you! Could you please call Verizon, remind them that I own one of their devices, that I'm paying for 4G service, and yet NFL Mobile doesn't work? I'd really 'preciate that. Thanks. While you're at it, could you call Hulu, tell them that I would really, really, really like to pay for their service on my WP7 devices?

In case it hasn't already been explicitly stated, I think the issue is that you're failing to realize the difference between primary and secondary viewing devices. NFL service is cheap/free on phones because you can't actually (comfortably) watch the game on your phone. It's a secondary service to fill in the gaps when you're away from your home, where you're already paying the NFL the full price of Sunday Ticket. The same goes for Hulu, as it fills in the gaps for viewers who weren't able to catch first-run programs on TV.

Clearly what you really want is cheap content; technology is barely a factor here. The moment you have a tablet, you have a device big enough to be used as a primary viewing device and content providers will treat it as such. No one is going to sell you cheap content on primary devices, that would be a poor business plan that fails to appropriately take advantage of price discrimination.

 

[Red Storm]

Android Tablet + Flash + Icefilms + firstrowsports.TV = everything you want

Another method is hacked Flash (to screw Hulu) and pay-for NFL Direct Ticket. Its mobile app works fine.

Hmm, mind PM'ing me how this works on Android?

 

[runawayprisoner]

I think I'll stop at this point. It's degenerating and names are starting to fly. If we can't really have a civil discussion without name calling, then I don't think this will head in a direction with good result.

 

[Slugbait]

First, allow me to apologize to runawayprisoner for the name-calling. I went a smidgeon overboard.

It's a secondary service to fill in the gaps when you're away from your home, where you're already paying the NFL the full price of Sunday Ticket.

That is incorrect. There is no relationship between NFL Mobile from Verizon and DirectTV's Sunday Ticket. Verizon has an exclusive arrangement with the National Football League, not a service provider like DirectTV. NFL Mobile is provided for all Verizon customers, not Verizon customers that use satellite.

In fact, Sunday Ticket is available for iPhone and select Blackberry, Android, Windows Mobile devices and the Palm-Pre (but look...no app for WP7. Seeing the pattern here?). Plus, you will pay extra for your phone access above and beyond what you pay for Sunday Ticket. With Verizon, they also require a monthly charge for NFL Mobile...unless you subscribe to 4G, in which case it is provided for no additional charge.

The same goes for Hulu, as it fills in the gaps for viewers who weren't able to catch first-run programs on TV.

Except for one glaring problem already pointed out numerous times...if my device is WP7, it doesn't matter if I'm willing to pay for it, I'm not going to get it.

Clearly what you really want is cheap content

Except that I've clearly stated over and over again that I want content...and I'm not getting it. I made it pretty clear in the original post:

You want this particular content? Then you need to buy this particular device and/or use this particular service with this particular application. But this device and/or service won’t be able to provide that other piece of particular content or application that you want, so choose your device based on your highest priorities and then go gripe to yourself about the other things that you want but can’t have. Or buy that second device.

Note that I didn't say pay for the additional service...I said, buy that second device (and of course, then pay for the additional service)

The moment you have a tablet, you have a device big enough to be used as a primary viewing device and content providers will treat it as such.

My wife's laptop screen is considered small, just four inches larger than my Galaxy Tab...quite a bit of content that is blocked on my WP7 or my Galaxy is easily accessible.

No one is going to sell you cheap content on primary devices, that would be a poor business plan that fails to appropriately take advantage of price discrimination.

Heavy sigh. It seems no one is looking at the bigger picture here. It's not price discrimination: it's device discrimination based on content and the content owners.

I've beaten WP7 to death in this thread. Anyone who has read any part of this thread knows that content you can get with almost any other phone, you cannot get with WP7 regardless if you wish to pay for it.

So let's expand beyond phones and tablets:

As originally stated, I have three HTPCs. Up until a little over a year ago, I just jacked the cable into the tuner card and set it to record...but suddenly, every channel above 29 was scrambled, and Comcast forced me to add descramblers to each TV to access ESPN, Comedy Central, etc (we had Expanded Basic, now called "Digital Starter"). And if I wished to continue using my HTPCs to record and/or timeshift, I had to add an IR Blaster that would change the channels on the descrambler...which is a very time-consuming endeavor to configure on one machine, let alone three.

The easy way out is to give Comcast more money, every month, for their DVRs...which have an inferior experience to Windows Media Center. Plus, they can't store my music and photos, can't access the Internet, can't play Crysis, can't access shared folders, etc. Or you could pay for TiVo.

Right around the same time Comcast scrambled, I purchased my first HDTV. Of course, I could pay extra money to Comcast for HD channels, and I realize this...but I can't record/timeshift with HD on my HTPCs unless all three machines are upgraded to Win7, all three are upgraded with CableCARD tuners, and I pay a monthly fee for each CableCARD.

Again, the easy way out is to pay Comcast more money for their underachieving DVRs instead. Or pay for TiVo.

They certainly don't make it easy for consumers to choose Microsoft, now do they?

Microsoft fought back by adding support for CableCARDs in Windows 7. But it's still a high-entry cost, just for the tuner. Plus, most people live in the world of cable boxes, many of them oblivious to Media Center. So what happens next?

Xbox.

First, we find out last month that MS struck deals with Comcast, Verizon and HBO to provide content for Xbox. But is it like TV, or like Media Center? Not really...it's more like Netflix and Hulu. And only select content will be available. But it's building larger...

Today we found out that MS has been awarded a patent for a DVR application...assumed at this time to be for the Xbox. How this would impact Comcast DVR or TiVo is anybody's guess right now.

And the whole point of the original post is at the end: Microsoft has declared war. They're not targeting individual companies this time, they are targeting an entire industry. Maybe they just want a piece of the pie, or maybe they want to be the baker, or maybe they want to be the oven.

Because that industry has virtually locked out WP7, MS knows WP7 can't help them fight this content war. Their tablet customers would not get content that other tablets get...likely resulting in few or no tablet customers (again). And that's why I believe they decided against using a perfectly good mobile operating system on a tablet...and going with NT instead.

 

[finbarqs]

I'd say, just make the stupid tiles with rounded corners, and more graphically pleasing and people will enjoy the OS more!