Microsoft’s Continuum feature allows one device to offer both a mobile and a desktop-style experience, depending on how you’re using it. Continuum allows the user interface of a Windows 10 tablet to transition to a desktop UI as soon as you connect it to a keyboard dock. And Continuum for phone will let you connect upcoming Windows 10 smartphones to an external display, mouse, and keyboard to use your phone as if it were a desktop PC.
Windows 10 for mobile phones won’t be available until this fall, and there aren’t any phones on the market that support Continuum for phone… but there will be soon. Acer showed off one of the first at IFA in Berlin this week, and Microsoft is expected to launch new Lumia phones that support Continuum soon.
Want to know more about how it works? WinBeta has an early look at Continuum for phone.
WinBeta’s Zac Bowden took a pre-release version of Continuum for phone for a spin and shared some initial thoughts (and a few screenshots). It’s possible that some things could change by the time Windows 10 mobile is officially launched, but here’s how things work so far:
- Connect your phone to a docking station and a Windows desktop will show up on your external display.
- The Start Menu is basically a clone of the start screen from your phone, with live tiles showing app shortcuts and previews of weather forecasts, news updates, email messages, and more. Click “All apps” to view more apps.
- At the bottom of the screen there’s a taskbar with buttons including Search/Cortana, back, and a task view button that should let you view all currently running apps and switch between them.
- When you launch an app, it’ll open in full screen, but the taskbar remains visible at the bottom of the screen.
- While you’re interacting with apps on your desktop display, you can still run a second app on your phone. This lets you treat the phone like a secondary display for instant messaging or other activities while you edit an Office document or surf the web, for example.
- It does not appear that you’ll be able to view more than one app at a time on your desktop display… at least not for now.
- Only Universal Windows Apps designed for Windows 10 will be supported. You cannot run Windows 8.1 mobile apps or legacy Windows apps written for computers with x86 processors.
- But those Universal apps will take advantage of a larger display to show more content. Apps like Outlook which only take up a single column on your phone can use multi-column layouts on a desktop display. And the mobile versions of Office apps will look pretty much the same as they do on tablets, notebooks, or desktops.
You can find more pictures at WinBeta.
With x86 majority are based on typical mouse and keyboard input and multi window tabs. So unless it can be scaled correct into a smaller screen with touch based…I think it would be hard to expect all software from x86 to run on Window phone.
“You cannot run … Windows apps written for computers with x86 processors.”
Epic FAIL! Make all the excuses you want for this. But unless it is fixed, my money stays in my pocket.
The fix is getting the developers to port their apps to Universal Apps…
To help that goal Microsoft has projects like “Project Centennial,” which is Microsoft’s App-V spinoff for Win32 and Universal Apps that basically develops a developers tool that should make it easier for developers to port their traditional desktop apps to Universal apps, but “without having to make many changes to the source code”…
This may not directly address what can run on phones but it’s a step in that direction and helps the progress of eventually converting all traditional desktop apps to the more flexible Universal apps… Eliminating platform specific limitations and finally allowing apps to be usable on any form factor device, along with being easier to update and include new form factors going forward.
There’s also a lot of remote options with streaming and other solutions that lets you also leverage any other system you have. For gamers this means being able to stream games from or to a XBox One, or a PC, to any other Windows device, among other such examples…
Like Windows 10 Mobile will have multiple features that will work natively with a Windows 10 PC and vice versa… but with some app downloads you can opt for either a Android or iOS device instead as they’ll be supported too, just with some extra set up work…
But keep in mind what they’re showing us now is still only the Beta Preview Build and can change as much as the Windows 10 Preview Builds changed from say last October to the RTM in July…
Also, keep in mind this is a PHONE we’re talking about… Having PC like functionality is a plus but it’s still a phone and should be judged on that score and compared to other mobile products.
Like one of the improvements over the previous WP8.1 is that Microsoft has jammed in a little joystick to the bottom-left of the virtual keyboard to make it easier to correct your typing mistakes instead of trying to tap and select what you want to edit, which can be hit or miss most of the time because of the small screen and the inaccuracy of touch screens. Something that is a issue with most mobile products…
Among many other improvements that shouldn’t be just ignored because the desktop features may not include everything you want… and being able to run both Android and iOS apps with minimal porting could mean most of your favorite mobile apps may soon be available as well and is potentially more inclusive than pretty much any other platform that’s either/or right now…
The point/hope for this might be that app developers jump on universal apps but it remains to be seen. It adds hassle for them to have to be approved into a store and it also cuts deeply into their bottom line if they charge. Doesn’t MS take 30% off the top like other ‘stores’ do? If I had an app I’d have to think very long and very hard about porting my app to a new place where there are hoops to jump through and I forfeit my profits.
And what is the payout for me for this? My app can go on all these different devices? Great. But – MS real numbers are in desktops. That’s what most of those devices are. So I think I’d just keep building my apps for desktop as I always have and keep all my profit to myself and not have hoops to jump through.
Developers usually have to pay something regardless of what platform they are catering to…
For Android apps, developer fees can range from free up to matching the Apple App Store fee of $99/year. Google Play has a one-time fee of $25…
App store fees are more important when developers are starting out or if they have lower sales. But as they sell more apps, the store fees become much less of an issue. The app store’s take is usually based on a percentage, so the more they sell, the more the store get too.
Most of the income generated in this way is from paid apps; the stores take their share before passing the money on to the developer.
The industry standard for how much income app stores take is 30%, which we can probably thank Apple for setting that as the standard – they weren’t the first, but the iOS app ecosystem has been used as a model by many other players in the mobile app space and is what MS was clearly trying to copy when they first created their App Store.
The problem is that most of the app stores that pay more than 70% of the revenue to developers usually don’t have very high traffic and it’s not like developers can thus ignore high traffic stores like Google Play…
While the issue for legacy Windows developers is they aren’t used to a centralized App Store economics at all…
So, it’s not really a issue for developers of Android and iOS to jump on board MS’s platform, especially now that the apps they port can reach a much larger user base and not be limited to any particular device form factor but desktop app developers are the ones that need convincing and they’re the one’s we’ll really have to wait and see if they jump on board…
But there are definite advantages to a centralized app store… It makes it far easier for users to find the app, it provides free security to developers to help prevent having their app hacked and replaced with malware, it provides some free secondary support layer to their customers and for big developers MS will give deals, just like the other big App Stores do for major app developers who bring in big numbers…
You are saying the Universal App Store charges and charges to develop aren’t a big deal because iOS and Android Play do the same. However the point is that traditional Windows desktop devs have not suffered the same previously. And it is them which Redmond hopes to convert.
The logic is as follows:
I sell a desktop app for $10 (hypothetically) and it is usable by any recent Windows desktop OS. That is a very large pool of users.
What Redmond proposes with Universal apps is that they will take $3 of my $10 which I did not have to give them previously. But in return my new pool of users is all of Windows platforms. However that number is still chiefly made up of those same desktops I was already selling to. The number of Windows Mobile OS users is not huge and neither, comparatively, is the number of potential XBox users.
On top of that there is some good chance that my app may make no sense in the context of a phone or an XBox.
There is very real reason to think that Redmond’s hopes and repeated assertions that surely all Windows devs would want to convert to Universal Apps is nothing but utter hope on the part of Redmond.
This ignores that the traditional desktop devs also never had the benefits of a centralized app store either!
The others moved to a centralized app store because of the benefits far outweigh the issues… Devs can make far more money from a centralized app store because it’s far easier for customers to find their app, devs can handle virtually unlimited demand, devs don’t have to invest so much in their own marketing, devs don’t have to maintain and run their own store, devs have to worry far less about being hacked and having their app replaced by malware that would be a nightmare for their P.R. and revenue stream…
While the store only takes a cut from actual sales, if the dev makes no money then the store doesn’t either… but you’re also ignoring the work around options of in-App purchases and app ad revenue that the store doesn’t partake of that still leaves Devs with ways to still get many of the benefits without sharing as much of the profit pie…
The rates are also not consistent, as supply and demand rules apply and the more apps sold then the more the dev makes with lower unit cut to the store past certain quantity points…
While what’s unique with what MS is offering to devs is the potential for a far larger market because Universal apps will apply to all user types for all form factor devices from mobile devices to full desktops and a bunch in-between…
Right now, traditional desktop devs face the declining PC market and only have the desktop/laptop customer base… along with ever increasing costs with dealing with hackers and malware, and other costs of operating on their own…
Along with a increasing larger user base of customers who have gotten used to the convenience of a centralized app store and have ever lesser reasons to bother with traditional desktop apps when most casual usages and even some levels of productivity can now be handled by the alternatives…
So yeah, the store is the way to go… and no, it’s not just hope on Redmond’s part…
So it’s really win win for the devs…
I think these stores do take a cut of in-app purchases. Though I am not positive of it I do strongly believe it. Of ad revenue I am less certain.
Devs have not, in general, been clamoring for an app store. Many could not care less about the money necessarily – as is evidenced by the open source movement. But most would care about the additional constraints and approvals necessary.
In the end we won’t have long to wait and see. If the app store is the panacea of all things good for all parties then it won’t be long before app development for the classic windows desktop drys up and switches to the MS App store.
I’m not holding my breath.
The story will be told over the next couple of years or so.
Usually, no… The stores can only take a cut if they’re being used to provide the service for those purchases.
Such as with in-app subscriptions, btw, Apple has done the same with the music in iTunes for years because that all goes through their service…
But anything that takes places outside of the store system isn’t subject to its rules and operating fees…
Actually, they have been because it benefits them and especially the small business developer who doesn’t have the infrastructure resources to do it themselves.
Really, where do you think all these app stores get their several hundreds of thousands of apps from?
Even big name companies like Adobe have developed mobile apps and takes advantage of the stores…
While, as a Linux user you certainly benefit with the similar benefits of repositories and the ease by which that allows you to get the apps you need…
It’s mainly a issue between older developers and younger developers… Those used to doing things the old way are like users who still cling to old software and mainly just set in their ways and harder to convince of why they should change but new/younger developers, especially those who practically grew up with app stores, see them as the clear way to go.
Really, there are devs who have made their fortune through app stores that wouldn’t have had that kind of success with the older systems…
Sure, it has it’s up and downs, pros and cons, like any system but where else can the little guy have just about as much opportunity as the big companies to making the next money making big app… So I think time has already told, it just has to sink in for some…
You are conflating people willingly using App stores for iOS and Android where they had no other choice from the beginning with getting traditional desktop Windows devs to happily switch to using one.
In the end I’ve thought a lot about our discussion and come to the conclusion that we disagree.
No conflating, only iOS provides no alternatives but Devs never had to choose to develop for Apple but they did because despite everything you may not like about their system it still ends up making the average developer tons of profit…
While on Android there are multiple stores besides just Google Play Store… Like the Amazon App Store, among others but like Apple most devs go to the main one because that gives them the best chance to profit…
So yes, we disagree and I believe the market has already spoken to what the end result will be…
Apple product sold so there was a market of users to reach. Only way there was through the app store. Yes, many Android stores but only one real good choice to reach those hundreds of millions of users – perhaps discounting the Chinese market. There is Amazon reaching some decent numbers but again another app store to deal with.
Nobody has ever reached serious numbers of users providing a stand alone Android APK and having people side-load it themselves.
That’s been the standard Windows desktop model for decades though.
So again – if you wanted to code for iOS or Android your choice was to deal with an App store. If you code for Windows then the entire legacy model is direct to user and now Microsoft is trying to make the case to those devs that the app store model is better for them.
These are fundamentally different contexts.
First, the Apple iOS products didn’t sell well at first… Apple’s initial fortune in mobile devices was made before iOS even came out with the iPod market…
But the original iPhone was nothing like it is now and many people questioned the Smart Phone market at the time… The iOS device market has also entirely relied on the app ecosystem, especially in the beginning… So they would never have been really successful unless the developers saw the potential and decided it was worth it…
If App Stores were as bad as you think then even now the devs would choose other alternatives but bottom line is it’s better!
Like you said, nobody has ever reached serious numbers of users by providing stand alone Android APKs and having people side-load it themselves…
What you’re failing to realize is the numbers have never been great for desktop devs either… They just never had a better alternative for decades… This has especially been a problem for developers who don’t have big companies backing them.
Word of mouth, and other inefficient ways to get users to even know about a app, let alone knowing whether it’s good or not and how to download the latest version has been hit or miss.
And it’s only getting worse with the declining PC market…
This is like someone introducing public transportation with a subway system and people clinging to the old horse and buggy transportation because that’s what they’re used to…
Really, things like repositories are the types of things Linux users have lauded praise about advantages Linux has over Windows for years…. and App Stores give the same types of advantages but on a bigger scale and to a much larger user base….
Devs choose to use App stores because it in the end gives them the better chance to make profit… So the case is pretty obvious because the old system sucked…
Yes I had heard of the ipod, though how it being a success is germane I’m not sure.
And yes I know the iphone was questioned at first and the app store itself was an afterthought of Apple. The fact still remains it became popular and the only way in was through the app store.
The idea that Windows software has never been popular is to wrong an idea to discuss. The success of Windows owes entirely to its strong third party software support.
As with the rest of our discussions I find we simply disagree and don’t see the point of pressing the conversation further.
Yes the fact remains the app store became popular and that fact proves that ultimately the benefits of the store are worth it for developers…
This isn’t even the only example, every market you can name has moved to centralized store systems… App stores are the malls and Amazon’s for apps…
Systems move to app stores for their own ends – security, control, competitive advantages, profit taking. Devs move to app stores because they are without choice in the matter. I never said Apple’s app store wasn’t worth the hassle for devs or anything remotely of the kind. What I said was that it remains to be seen that Windows devs will be as enamored with the Universal app store as Microsoft is. It has serious negatives which they completely ignore when talking up how readily they fully expect devs to embrace it.
The argument that app stores are heavily used so it is proven that devs prefer them is without merit in the slightest. Devs have generally had no choice in it. Microsoft absolutely cannot go that route though. Because to divorce themselves from the legacy app developers and try to force them to an app store model would remove the main reason Windows is a powerhouse at all – legacy.
I might point out that the MS app store for Windows has been out for several years – complete with many of its benefits. Namely Redmond handling billing and distribution and providing certain back end capability. And yet there has been no stampede at all. Rather, when Microsoft launched Win 10 and wanted to talk up the Universal App store and the ubiquity of Windows as one platform they were forced to make up a number they thought they’d reach (a billion users) and bandy it about as though it was an actual meaningful number and not just a hope.
That’s my final contribution to this discussion.
Sorry but it is complete and utter nonsense to point out that one choice is better and argue that means there’s no choice!
There are always choices, some are just better than others and the trade offs are part of those choices and they exist no matter what is chosen because every system has a trade off…
Doesn’t change the point that the market has already spoken as to which is the better choice and why everyone is headed to that type of system…
Hey Microsoft! 2011 called… from a Fujitsu LOOX F-07C, and said to tell you to go f**k yourselves.
You do realize you’re only trolling with comments like this?
Besides, the Fujitsu LOOX F-07C was a over priced and under performing product that failed even in gadget loving Japan, which is why there was never another similar model released! Good luck getting any companies to try that one again…
What I don’t understand is that with x86 processors becoming more common, why can’t they have a full Windows 10 build? 3gb of RAM with a Z3850 processor, and that’s more than capable to run it.
The phone SoCs are optimized for running mobile OS, not desktop OS, and there aren’t proper driver support for the Imagination PowerVR GPU.
While read my reply to tk76 for the other reasons…
This may change in the future but don’t look for it until around 2017… By then Intel will have put out much more powerful phone SoCs that will also finally be 100% Intel based and not a hybrid of ARM and Intel technology…
The x3 (SoFIA), for example, was designed from a ARM template to fast track the R&D required to develop a Integrated Modem SoC and put on the 28nm TCSM FAB to help make it cheap and get past issues of breaking into the China markets by working through local partners… but next year they’ll move it to their own 14nm FAB and then what they learn from it will go into Intel’s own future products, which should start with Broxton…
Some Chinese manufacturer somewhere will get full Win10 working on a phone sized device eventually, just like they did with XP, 7 and 8…. It may have some UI wierdness but it will happen, and happen soon.
For all the technical conversation about why phone SoCs this and that, fact remains that even Intel makes a windows stick, so my question is more why not: windows stick+ display + battery + phone dialer app of some sort more than anything technical.
Well, if we see any devices with a x5 or x7 Cherry Trail then it’s possible… but the phone SoCs integrate some parts you normally only see on ARM, like the GPU… and companies like Imagination aren’t known for good driver support for Windows…
GMA500 being one of the infamous examples of the times Intel tried using them in a PC product and was notorious for the bad driver support and that was when they intended it to run Windows… It’s far harder to get it to work with something they never intended to run anything but a mobile OS and in a market primarily dominated by ARM devices…
That said, there are rumors we may see some devices with a Cherry Trail and those will work with Intel’s Modem chip to provide full phone functionality… So may be just a jailbreak/root away from someone installing a full Windows 10 desktop…
Or, since the Kernel is essentially the same… Someone may figure out how to run desktop OS in parallel with the mobile. Like some already do with Android a GNU/Linux distro for a similar duality role…
Looks super boring to me…and amaturish…
Show me your professional creation.
I’m completely baffled why they would not allow an x86 full Windows environment if you have an x86 (intel powered) phone. Like others have said, offering essential an RT experience is sort of missing he boat. If you don’t have full access to Windows, then I’d much rather use Android (remix) and at least have access to a larger ecosystem.
I have a Windows phone and a Windows 10 convertible touchscreen laptop… and I use “universal” (RT style Metro) apps <5% of the time on my laptop, and am leaving Windows phone because it lacks a full ecosystem.
What’s to be confused about? Legacy desktop apps don’t work on a phone, never have and never will!
Examples like UMPC’s failed for a number of reasons and one of them is because the traditional desktop and its apps aren’t made to be easily usable on small screens, let alone devices with non-traditional inputs, and it’s not so easy to segregate apps to only run when docked and ignores that they have to compete with mobile apps actually made to work for those constraints…
Full desktop also requires a lot more resources than a mobile optimized OS. The costs of the phone would sky rocket if they had to run the full desktop all the time…
The mobile market isn’t ready to push for higher specs because of a variety of reasons… Like LP-DDR3 isn’t ideal for offering more than 2GB of RAM and most OEMs want to wait until they can switch to the more power efficient and higher capacities, without size increase, that LP-DDR4 will offer…
Mobile market also uses storage to leverage profit margins and that needs to change before they can start offering a lot of storage that a desktop OS would require, but that’s not going to happen overnight and the market needs time to change…. Leaving MS to deal with the present market realities if they want to compete in the market and not have virtually every OEM sue them for trying to change the market before it’s ready…
It’s also not like MS has a lot of influence in the mobile market and have to deal with market trends like the slowing tablet market that shows them that people don’t really want to try the desktop on devices with smaller than 8″ screens… This is why Windows 10 Mobile takes over for 7.9″ and smaller devices.
While, unlike RT the Universal apps aren’t limited to a locked down platform and will run on a lot more than just one device type… even the older Metro style apps aren’t limited to just working full screen anymore on Windows 10 and you can treat them just like any other desktop app…
The only question is whether or not developers will agree, but apps they make/port won’t be limited to just a single device range like they were with RT but pretty much every device MS is working with… So the ecosystem is very different with what they’re pushing now and shouldn’t be directly compared with RT…
Yeah, let me call Bullshit on your “The costs of the phone would sky rocket if they had to run the full desktop all the time…”.
Your run of the mill 7″-8″ USD 100 or less Win 8.1 Tablets run “the full desktop (OS) all the time” and don’t do a half bad job at it if you don’t go crazy with multitasking.
They are powered by 64bit x86 Quadcore Atom Chips, 1-2 GB of Ram and 16-32 GB of internal storage.
Phones like the “Asus Zenfone 2” exist right now. They’re powered by 64 bit x86 Quadcore Atom Chips and feature:
2GB RAM / 16GB Storage @ USD 199
4GB RAM / 64GB Storage @ USD 299
And those are full retail prices, in no way subsedized or tied to any type of contract.
Tell me how that hardware would be “too underpowered” to handle Desktop Windows? And don’t come with “but PowerVR drivers for Windows suck”.
I owned a Viliv N5 UMPC, that thing came with a friggin Singlecore Atom with PowerVR graphics,and yes, the Drivers did suck, never the less it was capable enough to playback 1080p without Framedrops (given you installed CoreAVC Codec) and generally wasn’t any more aweful than the “standard” single core Atom Netbooks of the time.
The Reason we don’t see “Full Desktop Windows Phones” right now is neither a matter of technical feasibility, nor of price, but it’s the same reason that prevented Windows Netbooks from advancing past certain Amounts of Ram, Storagespace or Resolutions, or why we hardly ever saw any Atom Tablets with more that 2GB Ram or 32 GB of Storage — Because the performance their SoCs offer is sufficient for 90% of consumers, and allowing for more reasonable storage options and/or more multitasking comfort due to more RAM would canibalize traditional Desktop and Notebook sales even more than “Mobile” already has.
TL;DR – We don’t have “Desktop Windows Phones” because Major Brands don’t want to canibalize higher margin Laptops/Desktops, and they’re pressuring MS to keep Discount Windows License Prices sold to cheap Chinese Manufacurers tied to artificially bad specs to prevent others from doing it.
Sorry but you’re insane if you think that’s BS!
Full desktop needs over triple the storage and nearly double the RAM to run as well as the mobile OS with less resources!
Mobile hardware also leverages components like eMMC storage capacities for profit margins and is why many devices increase the price of the product by large $30-$50 for a higher capacity chip that only costs maybe $8 more than the lower capacity chip… and up to $100 more if dealing with a Apple product… Asus high capacity offerings are hardly the norm for the market and probably account for a good deal of the pricing…
Smart Phones also tend to cost more to make than equivalent hardware in tablets because there’s less room to deal with everything, meaning its harder to properly shield components and get everything to work nice with each other, etc.
Desktop software is also not designed to power sip like mobile apps and that means you need much larger batteries to deal with the increased drain.
Solutions like suspending desktop apps don’t help if you’re using desktop apps on the go all the time.
Desktop apps also tend to require a lot more storage space and resources to run than the mobile optimized apps and that adds up with each app you use!
People already complain about using Windows desktop with 32GB of storage, with 64GB considered the minimum most will now accept that don’t want to constantly worry about running out of space.
While mobile OS can work with less than 8GB of storage and Windows 10 Mobile, like WP before it, is generally more resource efficient than Android…
A WP 8.1 device can work with 512MB of RAM and run just fine… Try doing that with modern desktop Windows and you’re going to fail…
And no, the Asus Zenfone 2 can’t run a desktop OS… It’s using a cheaper phone optimized SoC. Don’t confuse having x86 architecture with it being automatically capable of running just about any OS… even if you could find drivers for the GPU…
The benefits of 4GB of RAM wouldn’t even be as great for a desktop OS anyway and doesn’t even address the problem of how to manage desktop apps on a phone size device!
Phones are also much more likely to throttle than a tablet because of the more limited space they have to deal with…
So don’t even try to call BS on it when it’s pretty clearly true!
Major brands have long tried to offer such products… Countries like Japan even had phones that ran XP… but they failed!
The fact they even tried also disproves your conspiracy theory of comparing it to what happened to netbooks, which was a industry wide effort because netbook margins were too small… but that isn’t the case with mobile devices now…
While blaming it on things like cannibalizing market share ignores the very real problems that would prevent simply porting the desktop OS to a mobile device from working for everyone…
There are technical issues and there are cost issues and we can’t ignore years of what people have voted on with their wallets as to why the market trends are the way they are now…
You’re just arguing for something the market isn’t ready to provide yet… but give it another two years and we’ll see then…
I don’t get the current relevance of UMPC hardware that was insufficient 8 years ago? Small form factor hardware has improved a bit since then. If Intel and Dell are selling full Windows 10 in a HDMI stick then you certainly can get a functional solution out of a 5.5″ phablet.
No one is saying a phone will be able to be as powerful as a desktop… but you can make a phone the same hardware capability of the multitude of 7″ and 8″ full Windows that have been on the market for 2 years… and that was using weak and 28NM Atom chips, as compared to the 14NM generation currently available. Even a 2 year old Dell Venue Pro 8 can run basic Win10 apps fluently (and even tougher apps like Chrome.) And there are currently superior options for a large phone.
Top end Apple and Samsung phones have similar hardware powering them as their tablets. The same could be the case with forthcoming Intel Atom hardware.
IMO, the reality is that there are not enough Intel powered phones in the market for MS to offer full functionality. Instead of pushing forward with a potential market advantage by favoring x86 chips (intel) they are trying to pander to the broader ARM phone market, and to their own detriment.
Yes, the hardware has improved but the demands of running a desktop haven’t stayed the same as they were 8 years ago and people aren’t going to go back to OS made 8 years ago just to have something that runs easily on modern hardware.
While the issues with UMPC’s wasn’t really about performance but the issues of running a desktop in a form factor it wasn’t designed for…
Desktop apps aren’t designed to work easily on small screens, and don’t work well with non-traditional input methods like touch screens… A desktop won’t scale well, etc. as well…
The amount of resources required for a desktop is still more than most mobile devices are configured for… A mobile OS requires a fraction of the storage space and nearly half the RAM as a full desktop OS.
While Continuum for the desktop only works between desktop and tablet modes, it won’t let you use the desktop on something even smaller like a phone.
And while tablets have similar hardware, there are differences! A SoC optimized for a phone isn’t the exact same as a SoC optimized for a tablet… There are more restriction on the phone than a tablet has to deal with and less ways around those restrictions.
One of the reasons Intel has to use the same GPU’s as ARM for their phone SoCs are because of these restrictions and the fact they aren’t yet able to offer equivalents to everything in that range. It’s only since Bay Trail that they even managed to get a scaled down version of their GMA to work on tablets and Cherry Trail shows how much they managed to improve that in just one generation but there’s still plenty of work they still have to do…
For now, it’s just more practical to come with the present compromise solution until MS has had more time to make additional changes to the desktop and better prepare it for the flexibility and range of uses it’ll need going forward…
These things just take time…
What we’re fundamentally talking about tho, is continuum when the phone is docked.
Nobody says the thing HAS to run the Desktop on-the-go. What people want is that when you dock the little Fucker at a place where you’ve got a Display, Keyboard and Mouse it’s a “real” Windows Machine.
All your “Battery Life / Battery Efficiency” talking points would be moot, since a Place with a stationary Display to fire up Continuum would aslo have AC Power for the Phone.
The Tablets were merely an example to illustrate Desktop Windows working well (within Reason) on 1-2 GB of RAM. The Zenfone was an Example that Phones exist on the Market RIGHT NOW that surpass those tablets in both RAM and Storage (The Zenfone 2 even has a “Deluxe” Model with 128GB and a “Deluxe Special Edition” with 256GB of storage).
The ONLY point i MIGHT be willing to give you is the thermal throttling within a Phone Case while running a Full Desktop, tho the fact that HDMI Windows sticks exist make me think this wouldn’t be an insurmountable or crippling issue.
Well, those arguing over x86 are saying they want to run the desktop on-the-go… it’s the point of even making that argument in the first place and is what most mean by a real desktop…
While a stationary location doesn’t mean easy access to external power and Continuum isn’t limited to just desktop set ups but also laptop set ups as well…
A laptop dock, for example, still means working with all the limitations of being mobile. While you still deal with limited app ecosystem unless you have overlap between the form factors to be able to use the same app regardless of form factor and that is presently only possible with Universal Apps…
While your examples fail because they don’t represent what you think they represent… The Zenfone isn’t using a tablet range SoC and it’s specs come with different compromises than you would with a tablet…
Like you have no assortment of ports with a phone, it’s just the one micro USB or USB C port and that’s it… among other differences that shows you aren’t really making equivalent comparisons. You’re not even addressing that there is no desktop drivers for the Imagination PowerVR GPU…
Even the differences between a mobile and desktop OS matter in how much those specs actually effect usage… For one they are plenty but for the other it’s still in the minimum spec range and not being able to have full, any time, access to the desktop apps would impact the benefits versus the negatives of the compromises still needed to run a full desktop OS on the go in a still pocketable device… along with locking out the options to offer cheaper products that would run on even less that wouldn’t be good for their market share…
thankyou smsmf
I agree to your point that Graphical user interface (GUI) for desktop will not fit into smaller screen. It can be proved from the failure of Windows RT.
However, Microsoft has learnt from past mistake by improving to windows 10 (with ability to be tablet or desktop).
So, now, I think that mobile phone has gradually become as powerful as pc so that it can run “mobile apps” while at the same time docking to connect with larger screen monitor running full desktop app. Currently, I’m using Chinese Tablet with Intel Atom proc and dual boot windows 10- android kitkat. It has similar spec as Asus Zenfone 2. So, Zenfone 2 should has enough power to run windows 10 desktop.
One of the important thing that still missing now is the touch screen hardware and technology which is still not fit within current or future requirement. and also because SOC (processor+VGA) technology such as intel SOC or others are still running very hot with passive cooling.
What’s enough still varies, despite more than doubling in performance compared to what ATOMs were available for netbooks many people still consider them only good enough for basic usage and that’s a perception they need to change before we see wider adoption.
There is also the issue that the legacy desktop isn’t so easy to just segregate from the rest of the device to only have them run when using a dock, etc. and defeats some of the benefits of having a device that can cover convergence between multiple form factor usage by still requiring such separation…
Things are starting to change in the direction of eventually offering everything but it isn’t quite there yet…
Besides, it’ll be much easier to push for it when Broxton comes out next year with not only better specs but the same hardware from phones to tablets and low cost laptops… along with a probably much better app ecosystem by then as well…
Right now there’s still a divide between phone and tablet range SoCs… along with other relevant factors in the market that also need to change but eventually should…
Curious if Android apps run in this mode and what would it take to port some Linux apps, or maybe we need a Wine for Windows to run desktop Linux apps, as funny as that sounds.
It’s suppose to support porting of Android and iOS apps, some hackers checking out the early preview builds even reported they got the Play Store working.
But we still have to wait till final release to see how well they implemented it, and how it works for regular users, though it looks like we should be able to use just about anything that runs on the device and that could be a lot more than what they could offer before, provided their plans work out and developers get on board…
When they say that 8.1 mobile apps are not supported, i suspect that only means for the larger display. I am guessing that you could still have the 8.1 apps show up on the phone display itself.
Yeah, the 8.1 WP apps won’t support anything but the phone form factor…
It’s basically like when Google first merged their phone and tablet optimized Android versions (for those who remember Gingerbread and Honeycomb days) and it took awhile for the apps to catch up… Though, even now most still prioritize the phone form factor…
But WinRT apps should be easier to port to Universal, as well as all future apps being pushed to be Universal should quickly change that situation, but only time will tell for sure…
Except that most of the few developers who had even bothered with WinPhone in the past have now left Microsoft platforms behind, diminishing the odds they’ll come back and rework old apps to work on this even more rare platform. Expect WinRT to be ripped out of Windows 10 entirely within 2 years.
Markets and developers always change, those who left can easily come back and most wouldn’t even have to work that hard to do it either as the new platform emphasizes making porting of apps far easier than it was before…
While the app ecosystem is far more inclusive and factors like .NET being Open Source now are game changers for many…
Really, Win32 vs WinRT is like comparing Flash to HTML5… The later may not have reached its potential and still needs time to develop but there’s little question the former has to go eventually and the new solution will eventually replace it…
So no, expect the exact opposite as WinRT replaces Win32 and Windows 10 evolves into a truly modern OS that is quickly shedding the shackled of the old that have long held Windows behind…
75 Million Users in 2 months is not really “rare” or is it? Universal Apps do work on Windows 10 and Windows 10 Mobile so what is the problem?
Every time I hear a little more about this it seems a little less interesting/useful. I expected it to put up a normal Win10 desktop. Would be nice if it had an ‘app’ which showed a virtualization (though of course it actually wouldn’t be a virtualization really) of the phone screen on the desktop.
Instead it’s looking more and more like you can hook up your phone and run Windows RT. Other than the 10 people who bought RT devices when they came out for five minutes before Microsoft abandoned them nobody else has ever wanted to run Windows RT and I don’t see that changing.
Wow, you’re just dripping with RT resentment… First, let’s not exaggerate, there were a lot more than 10 people who bought RT devices, it just wasn’t a big success it needed to be because ATOM devices quickly made them obsolete and it didn’t help that they tried to price those devices in the same range as the iPad…
However, no RT device ever went into the phone range and this is more akin to how Android finally bridged the gap between their phone and tablet optimized layouts… You think anyone wants to go back to when Gingerbread and Honeycomb were the only two and separate choices?
RT devices also didn’t provide much in the way of convergence as they only covered tablet usage with very limited desktop… While Universal apps allow users to use the same app whether they’re on the phone, using a tablet, or working on a desktop… So it’s a very different paradigm they’re working with now.
Really, other than the issues of being a early adopter, and all that entails, there’s very little reason to knock this down as much as you’re apparently pushing for…
Besides, the desktop is pretty normal as far as any users will be concerned. It provides all the basics and the use of keyboard and mouse is the same.
Also, unlike other compromised solutions you can still use the phone as a phone at the same time. So you don’t have to disconnect to answer a text, answer the phone, etc.
Most other solutions require a lengthy process of switching modes and you’d likely lose what you were working on when you go back.
So to say there’s no market for this is to ignore a very large prevalent problem in the market that many people have been seeking a better solution for, for years!
As owner of two Windows RT devices, I am dripping with resentment that they have become obsolete. The iPad I bought before them, I still use today.
Yup, you’re entitled to feel that way but these things happen… Not every product released by any company is going to always succeed… and the companies that survive these failures have to move on or risk losing everything…
Nokia, RIM/Blackberry, etc. are all examples of companies that stuck too long to their old strengths and didn’t know how to adapt fast enough to the changing markets and they all paid the price for that…
At least RT had a better run than say HP’s WebOS TouchPad, which barely survived past its initial launch… and you can still use it and it won’t just stop working…
While new products should be judged on their own merits…
No. I’m pretty sure it was actually just 10 people. And Microsoft launched it on a Wednesday and had abandoned it by the following Monday. And it wasn’t a normal desktop at all – which is the whole problem. Couldn’t use legacy apps that everyone wanted. Couldn’t window the apps – on an operating system with the word ‘Windows’ in the title.
Everyone loves to bust on the face plant that was Amazon’s take on the phone but for my money Windows RT was just as bad. The reasons for both were identical. They built a product which ignored what was best for customers in an effort to get them to buy what was best for the company making the product.
Continuum is some nifty tech on its face. But it is beginning to look like another attempt to push people into that same corral.
They may not have noticed in Redmond but people really don’t want to be in that corral. They can talk up the universal/metro/whatever apps all they want. The strength of Windows is in the inertia of its legacy desktop numbers/apps.
I understand they desperately need to convert that a new mobile ecosystem for their own future. But I don’t necessarily need it for mine.
No, it definitely wasn’t, entire companies bought into RT devices like the Surface 1 and 2, Delta Airlines being one example that got them for their pilots and they employ a heck of a lot more than just 10 pilots and that’s just one example…
So insisting on that clear exaggeration is just trolling on your part!
You’re obviously not counting the limited desktop apps, like all the MS Office apps that ran on the limited desktop and could be Windowed… Also, the Modern/Metro apps could still be snapped viewed next to each other, with high resolution screens supporting triple snaps views.
But it was a tablet first, running on ARM SoCs, and meant for low cost device market… So exactly what did you expect?
Sorry, but that was never what RT was about… RT was introduced at a time when PC usage was in decline and it looked like tablets would take over but the most successful tablets weren’t full PC tablets but low end mobile tablets running primarily on ARM based hardware.
MS had to deal with the market realities and come up with a product that offered something for this growing new market as otherwise they risked losing out like companies like Nokia, RIM/Blackberry, etc who all lost out big because they stuck to their traditional market until it was too late to change.
You’re under the apparent misconception that MS really had a choice at the time… Even the hardware limited what they could do because at the time there was still no major alternative to ARM on mobile devices, Intel ATOMs were still extremely low performing, with architecture over 7 years old and not cost competitive with ARM at the time…
But even the best ARM SoCs at the time were barely rivaling those old ATOMs in performance and thus could barely run a desktop OS, which in turn made it pretty much impossible to opt for solutions like emulations or even binary translation layers to get old x86 apps to run on ARM and MS can’t convert all legacy software on their own, they don’t even have the right to do that even if they wanted to try.
While 3rd party software could easily make the OS run less efficiently… which combined with the limited performance meant they had little choice but to lock the platform down to ensure a acceptable level of performance on the limited hardware.
They never thought it would be a issue because they weren’t competing with the traditional PC market with RT but with general consumption devices like the iPad, which is also why they priced it similarly to the iPad…
This of course turned out to be big mistakes but MS couldn’t have predicted that Intel would soon come out with the Bay Trail ATOM and finally not only starting to compete with ARM but providing all the benefits of x86 to low cost devices…
Hindsight is one thing but to judge fairly you have to realize what was known at the time and why the decisions were actually made and not just go and make up some conspiracy theory…
The main issue with MS is they suck big time in marketing… Most of the issues with RT and Windows 8 came about simply because far too few people understood exactly what MS was selling and that essentially left people going in blind and finding out the hard way that their assumptions didn’t match the reality, along with issues in just figuring out how to use the new apps and UI, and that always results in a negative experience…
Which is why they didn’t just drop Win32 and move completely to WinRT right away… That momentum needs to change first and that’s also part of why it’s taking so long and why we didn’t see many of these improvements sooner…
Really, comparing Win32 to WinRT is like comparing Flash with HTML5… the momentum may keep the old around for awhile but it’s inevitable that the new will eventually replace it…
Clear and utter sarcasm cannot be seen as trolling I think. As you took the trouble to point out proof it must be more than 10 people and as you seem to completely literal I will concede the point. It was more than 10 people.
Surely not more than 900 people though. hahahahahaha. ( To save you the time of arguing against it let me assure you directly this is again sarcasm but goes to my real point that it was not widely purchased at all).
I suppose you have some point that the windows could, with great restriction, be tiled and so it was indeed a windowed system. But the restrictions were so great that it gave little comfort.
I am well aware of the reasons why Microsoft wanted – even needed – RT and/or Windows 8 itself for that matter. However that says nothing to what would work well for their existing customers. These things were fashioned, just as you say, with the companies needs paramount and not the customer’s needs.
I used Win8 desktop preview as my daily driver for several months. I assure you marketing was not the sole problem Redmond had on their hands. They had contrived the most idiotic consumer operating system ever devised. It had essentially two independent systems under the one roof. It allowed usage of the same applications names on the two different name-spaces/systems which was utterly and completely confounding/confusing for users since the apps shared nothing but a name and a purpose. Example: Two versions of explorer. Both web browsers and both with that same name but with separate settings/histories/etc…
On top of all this the controls for moving between these systems were hidden and somewhat arbitrary and the decision was taken not to provide any training for users with an introduction to the system because they did not want to make it seem daunting that you’d have to learn something. Instead it was supposed that like a chimp with a typewrite waiting to produce Shakespeare users would simply stumble around in the dark until they learned what secret actions they were performing and realized how to perform them again when needed.
It was, in short, ridiculous.
First, it has to be clear that it’s sarcasm… It wasn’t! Second, trolling specifically involves making clearly untrue and unflattering to clearly insulting statements with the intent to get negative reaction, which would be the result for anyone who took your post seriously…
Remember, no one can see your face or hear your words to get hints as to your intent and sarcasm can easily be misinterpreted to begin with… which is why most people use emoticons or other subtle hints when they use sarcasm so there’s no chance of misunderstanding…
Clearly, you’ve haven’t done many debates online as otherwise you wouldn’t have made this obvious formality mistake… Unless your intention was to actually troll of course, but I’ll give you the benefit of doubt when you say you were just trying to be sarcastic…
Again, not really true because you aren’t accounting for the fact that MS could only provide what was technically possible at the time and having never tried to fill this particular part of the market before they only had what had been successful so far in that market to base their design choices on… So they were largely influenced by Apple’s iPad… and in their mind that meant they were trying to cater to the consumer’s needs…
MS marketing just sucked big time and confused the heck out of people to the point few understood the difference between RT and W8… So people had to learn the hard way that RT was a niche product intended to compete against a limited portion of the tablet market for limited usage range and that was their biggest failing and entirely their fault…
They were trying to respond to the declining PC market and expand into new markets and the execution was just terrible.
Nothing really new for MS though, like one of the reasons Windows 95’s Start menu had the word “START” on it was because it wasn’t intuitive and instead of providing the means to instruct users on how to properly use the OS they instead just stuck a big plain word to try to make it obvious… Yet, it wasn’t Until Vista/W7 before they felt it was familiar enough to just leave a logo there instead of the word “START”… Of course RT was a far worse mistake but even now MS still needs to improve their marketing…
I disagree, as even your complaint can be summed up by the lack of proper marketing… For example, People with no pre-experience with W8 had no more problems learning how to use it than any other new OS, even some people who initially hated it changed their minds once they learned how to properly use it and got used to it… and in certain usages it had advantages that either Windows never had before or were less developed in previous versions of Windows… but like any new platform, it was far from fully developed and showed it…
Though, you can definitely make a case that there were many compromises made to get to market on time… a lot of that is to expected from a first try on something pretty much everyone else has failed and continues to fail to try to create… Basically, without W8, Windows 10, as we now know it, would not have been possible and even if they had taken more time before releasing W8 we would still have been stuck with a compromising solution because without user feedback many of the changes they made for Windows 10 would never have happened…
It’s also the inherent nature of any product that covers multiple usage form factors and usage styles to include compromises because it’s one thing to be good and specialized but multi-purpose generally doesn’t mean being good at anything in particular but that’s a trade off which many people tend to prefer in many of their products…
Like smart phones aren’t really great at anything particular but the trade off is they provide a convenience you don’t get from different specialized products in being able to do more without having to constantly switch between different specialized products…
The mobile market is also inherently compromising and that’s generally not seen as a bad thing but the nature of the beast, so to speak…
But like Smart Phones, software of any type and usage tends to get better over time and it’s not like MS wasn’t giving any alternatives by still supporting legacy software like Windows 7 until 2020… Giving people who don’t want to be involved in the developing period to wait for the pay off that only comes years later with well developed end products…
So, like most starting points, there are only so many conclusions you can make on where they will end up as what you usually end up with may not even resemble what you started with and we’re still a way from that final result…
Besides, there were many products and companies in history that people were pessimistic about but turned out fine in the end… Bottom line MS needs to stay relevant to continue as a successful company in the long term and that’s not going to happen if they go the route you fear they’re going…
My points are that there are other reasons why they’ve done what they’ve done so far than how you’re choosing to interpret it and that those examples don’t mean they’re going to end where you fear that they will end…
While the potential of what they are doing now has yet to be realized and if even part of what they’re doing is successful then it opens the door for even more potential that could lead to many benefits to consumers… but they won’t get there if you don’t even give them a chance to… Wait if you want, or choose some other alternative, but being pessimistic at this point is premature at best…
Btw, if Windows 10 does fail then that means Windows 7 support will be extended like XP’s was… Since it’s MS policy that there must be two other active OS versions available before they retire the third older OS…
Oh stop. For anyone to think I factually meant 10 people and not take it as hyperbole they’d have to be off their nut. It is clearly sarcasm. It is not trolling because while I did resort to hyperbole to make my point cheekily it was an actual point. It was not made to simply induce reaction. Win RT was not widely bought by the public at all.
My first internet account was taken in 1995 so no, it isn’t my first discussion in this space.
Microsoft had the technology available to simply offer a new and improved desktop OS to its great majority of users, which is clearly what would have served most of those users better at the time. The impetus for everything that was wrong with Win 8 and Win RT was a result of trying to make the product what MS needed/wanted. Not what its customers needed/wanted.
I don’t take a pessimistic view as a matter of course or merely to run with the crowd. I installed Vista when it came out and had generally no problems with it since I replaced all my hardware (printer/scanner/etc) at the same time and was careful to buy what I knew worked well with it. Despite Redmond quickly going to Win 7 and the constant maligning of Vista I used it on at least one computer at the house until just a month or so ago. I replaced that with a freshly built machine and a fresh copy of the just released Win10.
Win 10 has its own problems. If somebody in the house didn’t require Windows for a couple of things they do I don’t think it would be here. I’m quite happy with Xubuntu on my desktop and a chromebook for mobile use.
No, since the traditional definition of trolling includes intent and that includes purposely making a comment/statement that can be disrupting to forums. Such as making an obviously erroneous statement…
Just because the statement is obviously wrong does not mean your intent wasn’t to troll and was just sarcasm, especially when you gave no other indicator and tried to back up the statement instead of immediately clearing the matter.
Really, misunderstandings have started with less than this…
This is an assumption on your part, and for one thing it ignore that legacy Win32 had to eventually to be eliminated no matter what because it was reaching the end of its usable life and there was only so much more they could change before they had to start over with something completely different.
Again, the market reality at the time was that the desktop markets were in decline with the declining PC market. More people were buying mobile devices and Google had already started experimenting with giving Android desktop capabilities.
MS could not know at the time that Google would eventually change directions and priorities with Chrome focus instead of Android but this didn’t change that they saw growing competition and the potential that they could be pushed out of their own market eventually…
Mind, this already happened to companies like Nokia and RIM/Blackberry for the doing the very same thing you’re advocating they should have done originally and sticking to their traditional business model and market strengths.
While what the market was showing MS was that many of the usages that had traditionally been desktop strengths were now getting taken over by mobile devices for web browsing, etc. and this significantly reduced the number of hours people spent on their desktops/laptops.
Most people had also stopped using the Start Menu because it wasn’t really efficient if you had lots of apps and needed to find a different one from the ones you normally used regularly, meaning most people were using the search feature…
Among other surveys results they did at the time that showed them W8 was actually the direction they should focus…
Point of fact is W8 actually did increase Windows market share, especially in the tablet market where over a decade it had been at less than 1% and that was even before the success of products like the iPad…
So no, you’re using hindsight logic which doesn’t realize what they actually had to go on at the time to argue they did what was best only for them and not the consumers…
In the end the potential of a OS that can cover convergence is clearly beneficial to the end user, it just can’t be done all at once and takes time to develop…
Really, they knew they were taking risks with W8 and if they were only thinking of themselves then they wouldn’t have done that because they know in the long term they have to produce something that the consumers can actually use and would benefit the users, otherwise nothing they put out would sell eventually…
If they had actually been thinking of only themselves then they would have played it safe and put out a separate OS to try to cater to the markets traditional desktop could not appeal to but this is the same user base that is still clinging to using XP despite it never being very secure, BSOD magnet, and no longer supported for most…
So many people are slow to change and may resist it stubbornly with the belief the old is better but the old is fast becoming obsolete and MS isn’t the only one moving towards a convergence solution… but like anything in business, you are free to support whatever platform you prefer…
It wasn’t trolling. I was making an actual point using hyperbole and it was more than obvious to any average person.
You keep pointing out why MS needed to do what they did. But that is all exactly in the context of what they thought they needed to do with the products for the company. Not what would have been best for their largest number of users. In other words it goes directly to my point that they designed the products for their own interest at the expense of the interests of their users. That can only be a good business decision when your customers have no other choices.
Of course the technology existed to simply make a better desktop OS. I don’t have any idea what you could mean about me only assuming that. Such a claim would indicate that Win 7 was the absolute best desktop OS that could possibly be produced given modern hardware constraints.
Also – while Redmond might have thought that it absolutely needed to do RT and Win 8 as they did, they were both flops. So neither did what MS wanted them to do. And yet here MS is still in business and was able to produce Win 10. So they didn’t actually ‘need’ to at all.
Sorry, but it most definitely could be considered trolling. It’s all about interpretation of intent and contrary to your belief that wasn’t clear because trollers often use the same tactics and only people who know you would have otherwise known what your intent was because you never made that clear…
Thus your consideration of what most people would think is just your opinion, based on the assumption of how you perceive it because you knew what you meant, and obvious you’ve never analyzed how thin a line it is between sarcasm and trolling…
Clinging to the belief that your intent was obvious will only get you into trouble when you actually wind up getting a negative response from someone the next time you try it…
While you are similarly being stubborn about MS motivations when it’s clear you’re confusing hindsight with what would have been clear at the time.
My point is that MS did do what they thought was best for the consumers at the time and what the market trends suggested was what the users wanted…
MS basically faced a damn if they do and damn if they don’t situation… While it’s apparent most people still don’t understand that their long term goal was always to end up with something like Windows 10 because convergence was always the end game.
W8 was just the rough start as they worked out the details and moved forward from their original assumptions, but like I said these things take time and no one gets it right the first time…
Otherwise it wouldn’t be taking so long for anyone to be getting it right already…
Of course some people could consider it trolling. Some people still think the Earth is flat. The point is what any reasonable person would think and there it was obvious hyperbole to an obvious point.
Ultimately we disagree on this as on many points it seems. I don’t see the point in continuing to argue it. I doubt I will convince you and you certainly will not convince me.
No, it’s no hyperbole but just a simple reasoned conclusion… Your problem is you don’t realize that much of what you consider obvious is only obvious to you because you know your own intent but no one but you and the people who know you will know your intent…
To anyone else, they have to take your statement at face value and there’s nothing about it that openly suggests your intent was clearly only sarcasm, besides which sarcasms is one of the many tools of a troller… So even that isn’t enough to automatically assume people will understand your intent.
People have gotten into heated arguments for far less, so disregard that possibility at your own risk…
As for the rest, just look at the market numbers because they speak for themselves… You can believe what you want but it’s pretty clear what’s actually happening…
My saying it was 10 units was hyperbole and quite obviously so to any average person I’m sure. What you are talking about in relation to some reasoned conclusion I do not know.
Pants are probably a common tool of trolls too. I also use those. Each has the same implication to me being a troll. (To be perfectly clear with you that was also sarcasm but again in effect of making an actual point.)
The market numbers do speak for themselves but they won’t show the outcome of which of us was right for a couple years. Though if you want to go with the number right now I’d be happy to oblige because as of right now the numbers would show the MS App store an utter failure compared to traditional desktop Windows software.
Ultimately, as elsewhere, I see little point in our continuing this discussion.
You just don’t get it do you… Without knowing your intent the statement you made can be considered a insult to both MS and the users who bought the product…
Making fun, insulting, exaggerating, etc are all tools of trolling… Pretending otherwise just shows you never really considered how your words could be interpreted by someone else and this will eventually get you in trouble with someone who assumes your intent is negative…
Look at politicians and how often even apparently innocent statements can be taken the wrong way and they have to apologize… These things happen whether you want to admit it or not and is one of the reason why emoticons even exist, so intent can be understood…
Arsonists set fires. But then so do firefighters.
Pointing out that somebody uses the same tool as some nefarious person or type of person and so attempting to paint them with that brush is an argument without merit. I’m sorry if you think that is just trolling again as it is kind of insulting to your effort. But it is just my honest opinion and perfectly valid for me to say.
Feel free to have the last word. For my part I’m done. I find we simply disagree. Have a nice weekend.
You’re arguing nonsense, the difference between a fire fighter and a arsonist is intent… Without knowing that intent then it can’t be reasonable for someone to assume a fire was set with good intentions, you’re failure to realize these simple truths will only get you in trouble eventually!
Guess minor niggle, but it is not that people did not want to use Windows RT in itself but wanted to apps not available for it 😉 BTW I quite liked both my Surface RTs which were great for couch surfing, email etc. Major downside is that they won’t get Win10 but OTOH they will still work as good as they were before. Any there may not be many great WinRT apps but there are a few and depending on use case “enough”, certainly for my use cases.
Re Continuum:
I guess it depends what you want to do on your phone. Browsing (via Edge), Office (2016 should be much improved on mobile), Email, Calendar and a few other apps (Maps, Twitter, FB, Skype etc.) will work fine I guess.
Regarding virtualization, you could always use the phone as a kind of terminal and use remote desktop to access your x86 apps running elsewhere.