[turtle777]

In case you haven't seen Windows 8 in action, take a look at this video showing some of the new GUI features of Windows 8:

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

To be honest, this look like a giant fail to me.
Anyone who has used Windows before is goin to hate it.

Can you see this ever being rolled it in a corporate environment ?

Looks like Vista 2.0 to me.

-t

[BLAZE_MkIV]

Windows 8 is a tablet os. It's completely opposite of what you need in a desktop os. Why they're trying to unify the two I don't know. I've been pondering how to make the app I'm working on metro but the control density just isn't there.

As a tablet or phone os it's actually quite good.

[Eug]

[mduell]

Metro is for tablets and casual users. From what I've seen (we have an intern writing a Windows 8 Metro app) it's not bad, as good as iOS on a tablet.

In corporate environments they'll use the classic desktop; it's only one click away, and corporate environments will probably default to it.

[Eug]

P.S. I dislike Windows Phone 7 too on the Lumia 900. It's better than before, but it's no more intuitive IMO than Android.

Apple needs to clean up many things in iOS, but iOS is still by far more intuitive than Android IMO.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by mduell 

In corporate environments they'll use the classic desktop; it's only one click away, and corporate environments will probably default to it.

Did you watch the video ?

At least for now, the "classic" environment has some major GUI inconsistencies, some of which seem you to take a "detour" through metro to get back to where you want to go. Hare brained.

-t

[Athens]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Metro is for tablets and casual users. From what I've seen (we have an intern writing a Windows 8 Metro app) it's not bad, as good as iOS on a tablet.

In corporate environments they'll use the classic desktop; it's only one click away, and corporate environments will probably default to it.

There is no chance of it being used in corporate environments. Windows 7 is slowly becoming the standard and will be for the next 3-5 years. Windows 7 only started replacing Windows XP in the last year. Corporate environments do not spend money on upgrading Windows unless there is a business reason to do so. Many would still be on Windows XP if it was not for the requirements of new hardware which requires Vista/Windows 7 and between the two Windows 7 is the better choice. Windows 8 is going to fail on the desktop as Windows Vista did. Windows 8 I suspect is going to have at best moderate success in mobile. Those that will choose Windows based products will love it. The hard part is getting people to choose Windows based mobile products in the first place. iOS and Android have such a lead in this area that I don't see that segment of the market developing much for Microsoft.

Windows 8 will sell, but only because it will be sold with New Computers. This was the majority of the sales numbers for Vista too. People are NOT going to go out and buy Windows 8 to install on machines with Windows 7 on it. I can't even see it being a big success in the pirate world either. I don't think many people will want it.

The only reason my roommate and myself and about half the people I know are using Windows 7 over XP right now is due to games designed for and require Windows Vista/Windows 7. Otherwise we would all still be on Windows XP.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Did you watch the video ?

At least for now, the "classic" environment has some major GUI inconsistencies, some of which seem you to take a "detour" through metro to get back to where you want to go. Hare brained.

Yeah, not only that, but Microsoft is signaling that the conventional Windows interface is being depreciated and will be phased out if Microsoft gets its way. They're limiting new versions of the Microsoft development tools to Metro only, for example. The manner in which they're obscuring and debasing the conventional Windows interface unmistakably signals that Microsoft is intent on forcing people to move to the Metro interface for everything. Now whether market forces will compel Microsoft to have a change or heart remains to be seen, but for people who rely on Windows it's not a positive trend. Maybe Microsoft's business strategy is to release a terrible version of Windows every other release so that the next version is seen as some amazingly redemptive turn.

People complain about the iOSification of OS X, but Microsoft is going a lot further toward destroying the PC as we know it.

[Athens]

PS, I am going to make a killing on teaching people how to use Windows 8

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Athens 

The only reason my roommate and myself and about half the people I know are using Windows 7 over XP right now is due to games designed for and require Windows Vista/Windows 7. Otherwise we would all still be on Windows XP.

I much prefer 7 over XP, and I don't play any games.

[Athens]

I prefer the lower demand on hardware, better overall performance and 15GB less hard drive space XP uses. Windows 7 looks pretty but functionality and performance was lost.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Athens 

I prefer the lower demand on hardware, better overall performance and 15GB less hard drive space XP uses. Windows 7 looks pretty but functionality and performance was lost.

Performance of Windows 7 is fast on just about any modern computer, unless you're running Atom or something.

If you're running an old single-core Pentium from 2004 with 1 GB RAM or whatever then yeah, go with XP. But if you have any Core 2 Duo or later CPU with 4 GB+ RAM, then IMO go with Windows 7. If you want even faster performance, the answer is not to install XP, but to install an SSD.

[Athens]

I run a SSD and XP was still faster.

The GUI was tweaked in Windows 7 to appear more responsive and faster. Its really not. Disk operations is slower. Running anything intensive is also slower because of the amount of CPU power hogged at the OS level. At the end of the day with 15+ things open XP was a lot snappier. If all you do is browse websites and write up documents once in a while you won't really notice either way. If you have any kind of serious work flow going on you do notice. I do have to be creative about file management since the space on the SSD is very limited. Under XP I would have another 15 GB to work with.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Did you watch the video ?

At least for now, the "classic" environment has some major GUI inconsistencies, some of which seem you to take a "detour" through metro to get back to where you want to go. Hare brained.

-t

I couldn't get past the opening minute of FUD. But I watched it again, and I don't see what you're talking about.

[Athens]

I don't think you watched it. Because the GUI inconsistencies are very troubling. The lack of a start button (replaced by metro) no indication where it is so people will have to be shown to hover on the bottom left, people will be confused where the shutdown is, in the gadgets, missing control options that you need to go into the classic environment to get to but then even there its not obvious and will require some one opening the C drive then going up to the desktop in a window. Add to that quiting applications. People are not going to know how to quit a application and will end up with everything they ever opened running at the same time. No Menus for metro applications.. Its just horrible.

[BLAZE_MkIV]

The better part is that it's hard to quit application since the os is supposed to do it for you. So you adjust to that. Except if it an older application then os can't quit it and then they accumulate.

[mattyb]

I was thinking of getting a Windows laptop to replace my iMac, but since seeing what sort of direction MS is going with Windows 8, I think that I'll stick to a tried and trusted OS with UNIX behind it.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

I was thinking of getting a Windows laptop to replace my iMac, but since seeing what sort of direction MS is going with Windows 8, I think that I'll stick to a tried and trusted OS with UNIX behind it.

The problem is that they're going in two opposite directions.

At the same time.

On the same machine.

[Shaddim]

****, that's hideous. MS is going to force me to choose now, where before I enjoyed hopping back and forth between OSX and 7 (quite literally, with virtual machines). Oh well, they got it right for one release and then went all to hell again, that's typical Microsoft.

[turtle777]

My thinking exactly. Win 7 is very decent. I'm sure Win 8 is going to be ignored by most until MS maybe gets it right again with Win 9.

-t

[freudling]

MS will be fine. Even though everyone spelled their doom with Vista, people just used XP. Now, people will just stay with Windows 7, which is a pretty good OS.

Sorry guys, this isn't the end of MS.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by freudling 

MS will be fine. Even though everyone spelled their doom with Vista, people just used XP. Now, people will just stay with Windows 7, which is a pretty good OS.

Sorry guys, this isn't the end of MS.

Really depends, I mean a lot of Windows people I know looking at 8 are seriously thinking about Mac now. It wont be the end of Microsoft, but it won't help them. If the general public moves more towards Mac and Corporate environments stick to XP and 7 Microsoft is going to hurt pretty good.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by freudling 

MS will be fine. Even though everyone spelled their doom with Vista, people just used XP. Now, people will just stay with Windows 7, which is a pretty good OS.

Sorry guys, this isn't the end of MS.

Vista resulted in pretty big gains for Apple. But more importantly, the computer industry wasn't at a crossroads back then, the way it is now, post-iPad.

[freudling]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Vista resulted in pretty big gains for Apple. But more importantly, the computer industry wasn't at a crossroads back then, the way it is now, post-iPad.

Sorry, but Apple's Desktop OS marketshare hasn't gone up at all over the past 8 years. It fluctuates between 8 and 10%, which is what it was doing starting back in 2004. It goes up and down, constantly, never really breaking 10%.

Windows, on the other hand, has about 85% marketshare worldwide, and that doesn't include Windows Phone 7 marketshare but it does include MS up against all of the rest of the OSes, including Linux, iOS, Android, and other unmetionables. Yes, it's hard to believe but it's true. MS has that much dominance in worldwide OS marketshare.

They're not going anywhere, not for many, many years. Sorry guys. We do these every year for years. They'll make a mistake and just carry on. Windows 7 will be the staple OS for the next 5 years if Windows 8 fails like Vista.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by freudling 

Sorry, but Apple's Desktop OS marketshare hasn't gone up at all over the past 8 years. It fluctuates between 8 and 10%, which is what it was doing starting back in 2004. It goes up and down, constantly, never really breaking 10%.

Windows, on the other hand, has about 85% marketshare worldwide, and that doesn't include Windows Phone 7 marketshare but it does include MS up against all of the rest of the OSes, including Linux, iOS, Android, and other unmetionables. Yes, it's hard to believe but it's true. MS has that much dominance in worldwide OS marketshare.

I don't know how you manage it, but yet again you have it totally wrong. At least you're consistent.

Apple passed 5% (not 10%) market share worldwide last year for the first time in 15 years. And in 2004, it was below 2%.



Mac platform reaches 15-year high with 5% worldwide market share

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by freudling 

MS will be fine. Even though everyone spelled their doom with Vista, people just used XP. Now, people will just stay with Windows 7, which is a pretty good OS.

Sorry guys, this isn't the end of MS.

I didn't say MS would die, I just said Windows 8 looks like ass.

[freudling]

Originally Posted by Eug 

I don't know how you manage it, but yet again you have it totally wrong. At least you're consistent.

Apple passed 5% (not 10%) market share worldwide last year for the first time in 15 years. And in 2004, it was below 2%.



Mac platform reaches 15-year high with 5% worldwide market share

Once again, you've oversimplified it. There are multiple sources with different metrics. Steve Jobs quote from All Things D, 2004:

"Depending on the source, the Mac fluctuates from between 5 and 10% marketshare."

My source has them at just slightly above 9%, much higher than yours. Here's the headline I could spin from it:

"Apple Reaches all time worldwide high with 9% Mac marketshare"

Regardless, no matter what source you use, even if you want to make the slippery slope argument that "their coming to get you!!!", their share is abysmal compared to Windows.

We've been hearing this tirelessly over and over again for years and it never happens. Windows is as dominant as ever. Their revenue is up 6% over last year, with $5 billion in profit in the last quarter.

Android and then iOS rules the mobile world, Windows rules them all.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Eug 

I don't know how you manage it, but yet again you have it totally wrong. At least you're consistent.

Apple passed 5% (not 10%) market share worldwide last year for the first time in 15 years. And in 2004, it was below 2%.



Mac platform reaches 15-year high with 5% worldwide market share

He was prob referring to US market share which is higher. The problem with world wide market share is much of the world can't afford Macs. But that has been climbing for a long time too.

The problem with Market share reports is how they gather the data. I personally don't believe them. 10 Years ago I knew maybe 4 people who had Mac's and every one else was Windows. Today its the other way around, I know more people using Mac full time then Windows. I would bet the Mac share is even higher then what is reported, even as high as 20% now in some markets.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by freudling 

Once again, you've oversimplified it. There are multiple sources with different metrics. Steve Jobs quote from All Things D, 2004:

"Depending on the source, the Mac fluctuates from between 5 and 10% marketshare."

My source has them at just slightly above 9%, much higher than yours. Here's the headline I could spin from it:

"Apple Reaches all time worldwide high with 9% Mac marketshare"

Regardless, no matter what source you use, even if you want to make the slippery slope argument that "their coming to get you!!!", their share is abysmal compared to Windows.

We've been hearing this tirelessly over and over again for years and it never happens. Windows is as dominant as ever. Their revenue is up 6% over last year, with $5 billion in profit in the last quarter.

Android and then iOS rules the mobile world, Windows rules them all.

Windows might still be dominant as ever, but MIcrosoft itself has become mostly irrelevant. Google and Apple are the important players on the tech scene. Microsoft is playing catch up. You just have to look at the changes that have taken place in the last decade.
- Microsoft Cloud strategy is poor
- MSN Messenger is shedding users like crazy
- Microsoft Mobile is all but gone.
- Windows Share has been dropping
- Internet Explorer share has been dropping, Chrome took the lead now.
- The Xbox division is finally doing well but that took a long time
- Microsoft in the portable media player market is mostly non existent, I have still yet to see a Zune in the wild. Windows 7 Phone to.

If there was viable competition on the PC side of things for a alternative mainstream propitiatory OS that was user friendly, you could bet Microsoft would be in real trouble. The fact there is non and the only viable alternative is Mac which requires perceived expensive hardware is the only thing keeping Microsoft where it is today. Some times upgrades to a Microsoft product are more required then desired. At work we use mostly Windows XP. The only machines running Windows 7 are those that can't run XP at all because of no drivers. We didn't want Windows 7 here but had no choice but to use it for new hardware.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by freudling 

Sorry, but Apple's Desktop OS marketshare hasn't gone up at all over the past 8 years. It fluctuates between 8 and 10%, which is what it was doing starting back in 2004. It goes up and down, constantly, never really breaking 10%.

Show me the sources that show that there were no significant changes in Mac OS X market share over the last 10 years.

From all I gather, Apple gained much more market share overseas than in the US. But in both markets, Apple is higher than in 2002. Sure, every source shows different absolute numbers, and if you compare source A for 2004 with source B in 2008 and source C in 2011, you might get a flat curve, but that is not a real representation of the facts.

http://img.hexus.net/v2/news/microso...urpassesXP.jpg
http://successfulsoftware.files.word..._2007_2008.png
http://www.siliconrepublic.com/fs/img/globalos.png
May 2009: Apple Mac OS share rises to 9.81% - up 25% year over year - Switch To A Mac
Mac platform reaches 15-year high with 5% worldwide market share
http://fortunebrainstormtech.files.w...picture-63.png
http://www.macinchem.org/blog/files/mac_market.png

At Cornell University:
http://tidbits.com/resources/2007-09...at-Cornell.jpg

Web Usage, but somewhat related:
http://regmedia.co.uk/2009/12/01/wor..._web_usage.jpg

I really could not find any chart that shows a flat OS X market share over multiple years.

-t

[Big Mac]

Athens, I don't see why you don't like 7 honestly. It's probably the best Windows Microsoft will ever release, especially if 8 truly signals the end of the Windows desktop environment.

7 is as fast on my Core Duo Dell (albeit after an additional 1 GB of RAM for 2.5 GBs total) as XP was and without the Fisher Price interface style. Microsoft got 7 right - I think largely because it attempted to be the ultimate OS X knock off.

[Athens]

My fav is Windows 2000, but it has not been viable to operate for half a decade. Simple, fast, responsive, low on system resources.

[Eug]

For me: Windows 7 is the best, unless your computer is out-of-date.

Windows 2000 was the best for its time but XP offered tangible improvements like fast user switching. Plus XP had all the drivers of the latest common peripherals built in. It's like Windows 2000 with 5 generations of service packs.

Note though, when I run Windows XP, it's with the classic Win 2000 skin. I hate the tacky default theme of XP.

[Phileas]

The plural of anecdote isn't data.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by freudling 

Sorry, but Apple's Desktop OS marketshare hasn't gone up at all over the past 8 years. It fluctuates between 8 and 10%, which is what it was doing starting back in 2004. It goes up and down, constantly, never really breaking 10%.

Even IF that were true, it's not relevant here.

I mentioned the Mac only as case in point that people WILL look at alternatives if staying the course becomes complicated or unattractive. Vista was one of the factors that grew the Macintosh market (and it has been growing faster than the PC market for a long time now) in the PRIVATE (not business) market.

This situation is quite different in that it is becoming clear (even and especially to Microsoft, as W8 shows) that the entire home computing market is in serious upheaval.
This is due ENTIRELY to the iPad, and so far, nobody else has shown a real understanding of what it takes to succeed in the iPad market.

Unless they can show that they know what they're doing, Microsoft stands to lose most of the home computing market.
Unfortunately, the weird conflation of totally disparate interfaces, built in hopes of not alienating their existing customer base, is very likely precisely what they DON'T need to succeed there.

They'll be around in businesses for a long time, I agree. Perhaps even despite Windows 8 (but probably not because of it).

[BLAZE_MkIV]

Windows 8 is very much an aplha to me. They need a true tablet ui, but they won't get the user base they need if they split the os. I think they're playing for 8 to 10 years from now when you can dock your tablet into a keyboard and mouse for productivity or don't need to at all. And right now their just doing them minimum nessicary to support a desktop environment. Knowing that their users standards are so low they can force upgrades.

[Eug]

You can be 100% sure they'll be supporting Windows 7 for a very long time in enterprise.

[BLAZE_MkIV]

Hey it's not like their entire user base in Asia is running pirated copies of XP.

[Eug]

[freudling]

Marketshare is relative and some people may seem to forget that.

It's cool and great that a company may have a massively expanded userbase. But how is it relative to the competition?

In Apple's case, they may have a higher number of Mac users, but relative to MS, their marketshare is abysmal and relatively speaking, is stuck under 10% and has been since almost forever.

That's great that on some metrics they are shown to have gained a few percent over the past decade... but it's damn abysmal. I hardly believe it myself since I see so many people with Macs.. but then I remember I'm in North America. When I was living in Europe there were hardly any Macs... they're just too expensive out there.

I've been wondering when Apple will gain this huge momentum with OS X from iOS intake but that spike just hasn't happened. Small gains here and there but still a huge underdog to MS.

I think it's just too easy for people to dump $400 on a full featured laptop than $1000+ on a Mac. In fact, this could be a huge reason holding the Mac back... whereas with the iPhone and iPad... the iPad is much 'cheaper' at an entry point of $500 and the iPhone is a few hundred bucks subsidized... so the price of admission on these latter to the Apple world is much, much cheaper than what it is with a Mac.

[exca1ibur]

Yeah, but their business model with the Macintosh has always been based on profit margin, not marketshare. When everyone starting making throwaway machines this turned out to be the saving grace as all the other guys are killing each other over scraps trying to make a profit on $200 machines.

[freudling]

Originally Posted by exca1ibur 

Yeah, but their business model with the Macintosh has always been based on profit margin, not marketshare. When everyone starting making throwaway machines this turned out to be the saving grace as all the other guys are killing each other over scraps trying to make a profit on $200 machines.

Yes, I know all this. But marketshare can't be discounted... it becomes very important if you want good developers committing to your platform.

[besson3c]

I've stopped caring about these marketshare numbers, at all.

Marketshare numbers don't take into account what sorts of things these computers are being used for. The cheapest computer available will always be what businesses buy to run a cash register or some brain-dead single purpose appliance providing that the software that is desired to run is compatible with it. However, the manner in which a user interacts with a computer like this is much different than the manner in which one of us interact with our computers.

Even if you could measure the marketshare of personal workstations and weed out the drone appliance-like computers, there are still many users that use their computers for one or two tasks virtually as they would an appliance. Sure, there is nothing wrong with this, and sure these computers count, and sure this means something, but it doesn't really say very much of value that couldn't have been easily predicted without looking at these marketshare charts and graphs.

What is relevant to me personally is marketshare of people that are doing creative things with their computers, building things, operating within sophisticated workflows, doing stuff where your choice of computer matters and cost is not the single, deciding factor.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by freudling 

Yes, I know all this. But marketshare can't be discounted... it becomes very important if you want good developers committing to your platform.

Why do you feel that way?

Developers, like any other business or company have their target audiences they focus on catering to. If their target audience needs cheap PCs to do mundane tasks, they'll write software for that device. They don't write stuff for devices with the biggest marketshare hoping that more users of those devices equals more customers, they write stuff for the devices they know their customers will be using.

[besson3c]

Let me state what I was trying to say in another way...

Let's harken back to the day when people bought calculators (I guess people probably still do). Most people do not need a scientific calculator, because they do not do calculus or anything that a regular calculator won't do. You can get into all of these esoteric arguments about cost of ownership and trade in value or whatever, but at the end of the day, the $20 regular calculators are going to outsell the $80 scientific calculators. This should be of surprise to nobody.

The same is true with anything else, including computers, but the problem with computers is that there is no real way of knowing who is using their computer to do the equivalent of adding two numbers together vs. the equivalent of complex calculus.

Therefore, the PC marketshare numbers tell us nothing except that cheap stuff sells better, and probably always will. This is neither new nor profound in the history of capitalism. Therefore, the PC marketshare numbers in my mind are virtually meaningless so long as Apple doesn't try to beat the various PC makers in price.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by freudling 

Yes, I know all this. But marketshare can't be discounted... it becomes very important if you want good developers committing to your platform.

Many != good

Although, I guess if you throw enough crap some is bound to stick.

[Athens]

Something to consider, the Mac demographic group is a higher income group and also spends twice as much on software then the Windows demographic group. Every important application I can think of is on both Mac and Windows. You might only have 5 or so programs that do burning on Mac and 100 on Windows but between both platforms only 2 on each platform is actually any good. There is a lot more crap software on the Windows side of things. Further more even though Mac numbers are low, up to a 3rd to half of all homes now own some kind of Apple product which is not to shabby.

Im going to post how Mac usage has changed with my co-workers over the last 6 years.

[User] [Computer in 2006] [Computer in today] [Smart Phone]
DK, PC, Mac, Android
PM, PC, Mac, Non Smart Phone
DB, PC, PC, Non Smart Phone
SV, PC, PC, Blackberry
TC, PC, PC, Non Smart Phone
MH, PC, Mac, iPhone
RK, PC, Mac, iPhone
EA, PC, Mac, iPhone
DG, No Computer, No Computer, No Cell Phone
RS, ?, Mac, Blackberry
MG, Mac, Mac, Android
BH, PC, Mac, iPhone
JB, PC, PC, Android
MG, PC, Mac, Android
VL, PC, Mac, Non Smart Phone
VG, Mac, PC, iPhone
HJ, PC, PC, iPhone
RM, PC, Mac, iPhone
CG, Mac, Mac, Blackberry

Sample Group 19

2006 - 14 PC's, 3 Macs, 1 Unknown, 1 No Computer
2012 - 6 PC's, 12 Mac's, 1 No Computer
Smart Phones, 4 Non Smart Phones, 4 Androids, 3 Blackberrys, 7 iPhones, 1 No Cell Phone.

Now for the computers these users are forced to use at work its 16 PCs replaced twice since 2006 and 3 Macs not replaced since 2006.

So out of this group of 19 over 7 Years combing personal computers and work computers you have a total of around 52 PCs purchased, and 18 Macs purchased. The number for the PC's is actually higher because most of the users have gone through 2 PCs during this time at home before moving to Macs. But you can see how in a group of 19 when you combined home usage and high replacement intervals with work stations at work you get a really skewed number for market share. I didn't even factor in the 10 or so dedicated PC's here not used by users that run special applications or serve a dedicated purpose for something in these numbers.

Real usage for this group of 19, I have 12 full time Mac users at home and 6 full time PC users. twice as many PC users. On paper though with work computers the numbers say its the other way around. This is why I hate statistics, they can be twisted into what ever the author wants to show. And the collection methods never tell the true and whole story either. There is no doubt that Windows has a higher market share from sales numbers, but this does not really tell us anything about real usage numbers.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

Windows 8 is a tablet os. It's completely opposite of what you need in a desktop os. Why they're trying to unify the two I don't know. I've been pondering how to make the app I'm working on metro but the control density just isn't there.

As a tablet or phone os it's actually quite good.

I can't understand the burning drive to unite the desktop OS and the mobile OS, from either Apple (first) or then Microsoft. Some stuff I read a while back suggested that Apple may have even copied the idea from Microsoft's early attempts to make a tablet, but I digress.

The pushbutton-simple stuff in iPad is great for iPad (or Android or whatever) but the iPad is a media consumption device. How do I know this? It doesn't even allow tactile indexing of fingers on the keyboard, and you've got to have an error correction algorithm built in to use it. Bah! It's not a device for creating, not primarily.

I think the mobile aspects of Windows 8 are going to be spectacularly stupid. Regardless of what Woz says .

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by finboy 

I can't understand the burning drive to unite the desktop OS and the mobile OS, from either Apple (first) or then Microsoft.

Apple is definitely NOT about "uniting the desktop OS and the mobile OS".

They are transferring features between the two, which makes sense, but unification is something they are explicitly NOT planning, and despite Microsoft's efforts, it actually makes very little sense to do so. Operating Metro with a mouse is apparently quite literally a total drag.

[BLAZE_MkIV]

Eventually tablets and phones will have the performance for most computing tasks and when that happens I can see docking type solutions were the UI switches from touch to keyboard/mouse. Note I used switches. I don't see a one size fits all interface until post singularity.