Windows 8: First impressions

Windows 8 Screenshot

Hooray for Microsoft. Their view of a Windows 7 tablet world nearly had me worried. However, coming from the labs for a surprising public demo this week was a pre-release of Windows 8. Apparently, Ballmer wasn’t lying when he gave some precursory remarks about upcoming Windows releases last week.

Albeit an interesting new release, my take from the demo is nothing short of Microsoft's attempt to embrace the tablet world without forsaking the traditional, legacy operating environment and applications we’ve been used to for some twenty-five years now. Does it pull it off? Meaning, is it just regular-old Windows with a sketchy touch skin on top? And does it make more sense to combine the flexibility of the desktop into a tablet device rather than build a completely separate tablet OS altogether? We can only know when the final build is released, but for the time being, let’s explore this a little more.



Before today, we all knew that Microsoft was working to make Windows support ARM-based processors. With that only foreshadowing what was to come, it seemed that they still had not learned their lesson that desktop operating systems do not fit on small, touch-based devices. Windows, as it is today, is simply too clunky and cannot compete on a functional level with touch-based products like the iPad or any recent Android tablet.

However, it looks as if they are trying their damnedest to get the best of both worlds for future Windows products. That’s right. We can assume there will be no separate operating environment called the Windows Tab for the tablet, as Windows Phone is to the phone.

In the demos, however, Windows 8 does act like like Windows Phone—live tiles and all—but it may not necessarily be based on the same code. Instead, it seems to be a layered system, where Windows still runs underneath (hopefully with some much needed tweaking and slimming down), but in the forefront you see a “Start” screen like never before. While looking a little like Windows Media Center, tiles are scattered across the screen, just as in Windows Phone. In this UI, you can have news and social media tiles, widgets and other apps all displaying information so you don’t have to fire up each particular application to get what you want—a design feature touted heavily by Windows Phone marketing campaigns.

Again, the system does run a traditional Windows desktop underneath, but the entire OS is said to be completely redesigned for touch input. If you have used a HP TouchSmart PC with Windows 7, then you know exactly how important this is.

Other things of note is a completely new soft keyboard, which seems to work quite well, and also the ability to run touch apps right next to mouse and keyboard apps. It’s hard to tell without using the product whether or not this has any realistic use. But from a technology-advocate's standpoint, it's good to see that Microsoft isn't afraid to try something new, and I think this is a step in the right direction. Only time and money will tell if this is the answer consumers and professionals are looking for.

What kind of codename is Windows 8?

I mean, really? What is so secretive about a name that the entire tech world is already calling your unreleased product?

A walkthrough of the design features of the soon-to-be replacement for your Windows desktops... possibly your tablets?

Is Steve Ballmer even aware of his own product roadmap?

Recently, CEO of Microsoft Steve Ballmer told an audience of developers that they planned on shipping the next Windows product in 2012. There he made the first public references to the next release, and he even referred to it as "Windows 8."

However, this report indicates that Microsoft as retracted Ballmer's statements, saying "There appears to be a misstatement... To date, we have yet to formally announce any timing or naming for the next version of Windows."

Hmm. Steve Ballmer—a CEO and loose cannon? Apparently so.

This is troubling in a couple of ways. First, in the face of Apple releasing yet another major version of its operating system, Mac OS X 10.7 "Lion," this news eradicates the hope of Microsoft keeping a consistent and competitive release cycle. Second, what kind of shape is Microsoft in behind the curtains when its own CEO either doesn't know or doesn't have the authority to speak publicly about his own flagship products?

When I first heard the news about Windows 8, I was hopeful, excited, and even proud of Microsoft for keeping on its game to maintain a consistent Windows upgrade cycle. The current version of Windows, Windows 7, was first launched in October 2009, about a month after Mac OS X Snow Leopard, the competing Apple platform. However, with Apple looking to ship a brand new version of OS X this summer, Microsoft again trails behind in their releases.

Not that they need to keep up with Apple to maintain their market-share, but Apple sure puts them to shame in the number of major iterations of each company's desktop OS. If you remember, Windows XP, released in late 2001 rode a product life cycle of almost 6 years. Whereas Mac OS X in the same time had 4 major product iterations.

Again, with the very likely possibility of  OS X 10.7 "Lion" to launch next month, Windows users will have to wait at least another year before any tangible release dates start looming around.

Just as a side-note, with the wide dynamic of Windows users, I really just dawned on me that a large portion of Windows users, i.e., large businesses and IT professionals, may not be ready for or even want a new version of Windows. Having probably only recently finally gotten the ducks in a row with Windows 7, a new version only two or three years later may actually be a hassle. Just sayin'. But that speaks a lot about how Microsoft develops and deploys, and how their customers use, their products.

Quick thought: iWork is old

If I'm counting correctly, Apple's last iteration of its productivity suite, iWork, is over 2-years-old.

That's really, really old for a major software company to have last put out a major update to one of its key products. The iWork we know today—which is mostly unchanged since January 2009—used to be named "iWork '09." Well, instead of actually releasing an update for the software, which by the way is missing tons of features (styles are still a mess) compared to the Swiss-Army-knife that is Microsoft Office, they have opted to just drop the "'09" from the name.

That's quite an update! At least the title doesn't scream "totally slacking on updating this thing" anymore. Go see for yourself. Open up the Mac App Store, and along the right-hand side you should see a link to the recently updated "iLife '11" suite of apps. Just below that, witness for yourself the '09-less "iWork" link.

Dude, really? And these 2-year-old apps go for $19.99 a piece—60 bucks for the suite?

Don't get me wrong, I love iWork. Because eventually I get exhausted just looking at all the switches and toggles and buttons and controls littering Microsoft Word. And the humble little Pages icon sits in my dock just waiting to save my confused noggin all the trouble.

Mac OS X beginnings: NeXTSTEP

Now a decade after its first release, now’s the time for some nostalgic Mac OS X goodness. Let’s take a look at the Mac’s most far-reaching and advanced operating system from inception and infancy to its now very adult-like capabilities and features.

OS X beginnings: NeXTSTEP

NeXTSTEP screenshot thanks to kernelthread.com

If you weren’t aware, the OS X Snow Leopard we know and love today was actually birthed from an operating system developed during the late-1980s to mid-1990s called NeXTSTEP. NeXTSTEP, from the Steve Jobs-owned company, NeXT, was an more modern multitasking operating system and well ahead of its time. However, bundled with capable though very expensive hardware, NeXTSTEP struggled to gain marketshare with competing “workstation” computers, and eventually Microsoft Windows became the preferred platform in both business and consumer markets.

Apple, then a competing company for Steve Jobs, also faced the same struggles. And by the mid- to late-1990s, Apple was desperate for a solution, as their main product line, the Macintosh, was no longer as competitive because of its aging, single-user and single-tasking operating system, OS 9.

An agreement was made. Apple bought NeXT, and with it all the advanced technologies within the NeXTSTEP operating system. With Steve Jobs back at Apple as an interim-CEO, and with NeXTSTEP in tow, Apple got to work on the next generation of OS called OS X. That’s “X” for “ten.”

Next post, we'll look at the brainchild of these efforts, OS X 10.0—aka Cheetah.

Here's a video of Steve Jobs demoing NeXTSTEP 3, the last major iteration of the operating system software:

Perspective: T-Mobile can be bought for $39B, Apple has over $50B in cash.

Pending all the necessary government approvals, AT&T announced today their plans to buy US GSM competitor T-Mobile for $39 billion. Without going into all the politics as to whether or not this is overall a good idea or benefit to consumers, I felt it was worth mentioning just what $39 billion dollars can actually purchase.

Though a follower of all things tech, I have a not-so-unique fascination with Apple, that company which sells those i-Thingies. Pretty much everyone is just as fascinated as I when Apple steals headlines for each shiny new toy. And one thing that most people know as of late is just how quickly Apple's cash reserves seem to continuously build. Last reports have their cash piles weighed in at a cool $51 billion. That's a heck of a lot of money. What drives journalists even crazier than the mind-boggling number alone is that nobody knows for sure what Apple plans to do with it. There have been some guesses; however, most of us sit and wait for them to take over the world.

But let's take another look at that number: $51 billion. In pure cash. No debt. A market valuation soon to pass Exxon to be the most valuable company in the world. And unlike the animosity most have toward Exxon, Apple and Steve Jobs have been named the most admired and loved company and CEO of last decade. What does all this mean? It means that that pile will continue to grow, and all the while Apple seems to have the highest restraint not to impulse-buy any thing they like, say, a leading wireless provider...

Of course, that's not their bag, being a carrier, but it does offer some perspective as to just what they're capable of doing with that money. Maybe they could buy Microsoft?

Tablet Fever

Apparently at CES this year, some 100 or more tablets were announced or introduced.

That's crazy.

Just one year ago, right before the iPad was announced, Steve Ballmer got up on stage to announce a few tablets, highlighting one -- the HP Slate -- that wouldn't even go into production. Why? Because once again, the ideas and concept products from manufacturers all had to be re-thought and redesigned in order to compete.

The iPad. When it was announced January 2010, most tech journalists screamed disappointment, their favorite word to describe it being "underwhelming." Oh, it was "just a big iPod Touch." And most people wrote it off as unimportant nearly instantaneously. The problem wasn't with the device at all. The problem was with people's expectations. If the iPad cured cancer, it still wouldn't have satisfied those people. What, with all the hype and speculation the Apple Tablet had garnered for more than a decade?

But it turns out that being just a big iPod Touch is freaking awesome. As soon as I saw the iPad and then heard its "big iPod Touch" description, I thought, "Alright! A big iPod Touch! That's great!" What else could it have been? It seems that being just a larger iPod is still better than what any manufacturer could come up with for the past year and possibly even another year.

So the tablet hype is in full swing, and opinions about the iPad have come full circle. As soon as a few other manufacturers started seriously trying to ship Windows 7 tablets, we then had a more telling look at the devices when we could see them in action side-by-side. And the iPad won, over and over again.

Since then, Samsung recently has been the most direct competition for Apple with the release of the Samsung Galaxy Tab. It is built by using the phone Android OS, with Samsung doing what it can to make it more tablet-y. But after having high hopes for what it was and what it could do, after using it I was sadly disappointed. Samsung seemed to rush this thing into market, as it lacked real polish (as does most Android phones). And in many instances across the OS, there were too many references to the "phone" the OS thought is was running on. Looks like they forgot to erase the term "phone" and switch it to "tablet" or "tab." As an example, using a demo model, the Galaxy Tab told me that the phone was missing its card-storage.

However, now Android is finally out to compete is better products, and with the Android 3.0 "Honeycomb" OS coming on a bunch of new devices, we might finally see some actual competition for another market that Apple has once again dramatically influenced and/or dominated.

And as for Windows tablets? God, if they don't soon make the Windows Phone 7 OS over to a tablet form and call it Windows Tab 7 -- or something -- then they have no hope in this catagory. Somebody over there has got to get it together and realize that Windows 7 wont make it in the current market landscape. At CES, Microsoft announced that Windows will make it over to support an ARM-based infrastructure, which just means that they plan on making their desktop OS more fit for tablets. Get you heads out of your ass, Microsoft. Put all your resources in to Windows Phone 7 OS on tablets. It's good. You did great on that software. As soon as you join the pack with a real offering -- an OS with real simplicity, tight underpinnings, and a re-worked UI that's as fluid and seamless as your great new phone OS, then you might have a chance.

Here's just a sample of the tablets that were announced at CES, with more on the way.

Windows Phone 7 is cool, just a couple years too late

In New York this Monday, Microsoft finally held its Windows Phone 7 event, officially introducing the new operating system along with 10 different handsets that will run it. The entire time I watched the keynote, however, as excited as I was for a product that looked to be extremely tight and polished, I also couldn't help but kinda pity Microsoft for one main reason: they needed this platform and these devices two years ago.

After watching the hour-long, slow-going keynote, which, while not an Steve Jobs presentation, was at least as informative as it was entertaining, I found myself continually nodding my head. Microsoft really has something here with Windows Phone 7. And having used Windows Mobile in the past, everything I saw up on that small stage was a complete rework of a struggling mobile strategy that now has the fit and finish to slide in among the big names already in the field. If only this event was held a couple of years ago, where would the industry be now?

There's no doubt that Microsoft is late to the game. While remaining somewhat relevant among smartphones, Windows Mobile 6 just didn't have the vigor to compete against the shine of the iPhone and iOS, as well as the slew of phones coming from handset makers adopting the Android platform.

So, why has it taken Microsoft this long to get on the bandwagon, to put something on the market that actually has a chance? They are a big cat in the industry -- they make freaking Windows for heaven's sake. How can the makers of the most popular software in the world not create something on the cellphone to turn consumer heads?

You might say the Redmond-based software giant suffers from managerial issues. Hell, when the iPhone was first announced, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer laughed at the notion of the iPhone becoming popular, ignoring not only how drastically different it was, but also how the iPhone was exactly what the industry needed: a jumpstart on serious mobile computing design and applications, and a handset-to-carrier relationship that worked for the consumer. I have no idea what's really going with Microsoft's board of directors, but I imagine their meetings might look like a scene from "12 Angry Men."

From my perspective, instead of having a clear mindset of "We need to make a better product now," the ideas around the heads of Microsoft decision makers, or lack thereof, were seemingly fruitless. For too long, waiting on the market and riding on WinMo 6, they appeared to not be able to make a decision about anything. All the while, iPhone was having one hell of a party. Vision and motivation in taking an idea, even those outlandish, is what was lacking from the spirit of leaders. Numbers and figures in the face of art, business suits in the face of fashion, maybe... As Chris Ziegler of Engadget writes about Microsoft senior vice president Andy Lees, "Lees -- like most Microsoft execs -- is a no-nonsense numbers guy" (Link). Maybe they only felt comfortable playing a sure thing.

Lack of vision and leadership. Case and point: Two Windows Phones, which were doomed from their conception, somehow made it to market only to be discontinued in less than two months. The Kin One and Kin Two, called project "Pink" before they were released, apparently had the same problem with project management: too many chiefs, not enough indians. Or maybe more appropriately: too little chiefs with vision, plenty of indians. This is an excellent story by Ziegler of Engadget on the whole Kin debacle: Life and death of Microsoft Kin: the inside story.

The point is, if Windows Phone 7 was ready and released this time in 2008, the time when phone manufacturers really started to get behind and drive the market share for Android (the only other viable touchscreen smartphone platform -- sorry Blackberry Storm), I do believe that Microsoft would be next to, if not overtaking, the iPhone in terms of market share. But, alas, when Steve Jobs introduced the iPhone to the world, though the Android platform had already been conceived, most companies in technology had their thumbs up their butts wondering what to do next.

So with the worst days hopefully behind Microsoft on the mobile front, lets imagine a world without Windows. Or not.. that'll never happen. But well see just how Microsoft fares on their new offering, and if it will gain any traction. I predict by this time 2011, Microsoft will have regained a good position in terms of both mindshare and market share, but not enough to constitute overtaking the market any time soon.

Blackberry Playbook - here's hoping

I pray to all things good in the universe that this Blackberry Playbook tablet is in the least bit competitive against the iPad. I'm sick of Apple being the only company able to pull much of anything off correctly. I want an iPad, but I tired of only wanting Apple stuff; I have too much Apple stuff! Please, please, please, wont there be another company to make something as cool as or better than Apple's offerings?

To be fair, I love the Palm Pre and WebOS design. And I hope (again, hoping) that HP will make something great out of the investment (the purchase of Palm). But I'm tired of companies taking the "wait and see" approach to new markets and/or to revolutionize/reinvent markets. Apple does that; they did it with the iPod, iPhone, and now the iPad. They have a philosophy, advanced by Steve Jobs, that says, make something great, know it's great, know it works great, and know it looks great, and spend as much time as it takes to accomplish that, and screw everybody else that gets in the way.

That's right! These tech companies need to grow some!

Microsoft, in its horrible marketing and management disarray, having already failed with the Kin One and Kin Two, is finally set to release Windows Phone 7 upon the world next week -- their new, supreme touchscreen and modern mobile OS competitor to the iPhone. But the iPhone was released July 2007! It's October 2010! This is how long it takes for somebody to do anything to keep up with Apple and the Jobs-man.

Research In Motion (RIM), in the case of the PlayBook, isn't too far behind the iPad; its been only a few months now since the iPad's release. So, I'm sure RIM has been working on some type of tablet offering for a while now, possibly even a few years as far as the operating system infrastructure goes. I'm willing to bet, however, that as soon as the iPad was announced back in January, they went full-steam ahead to ramp up development for what we've seen introduced last week.

They claim this tablet computer is for the "professional" -- like businessmen. But if you think like me, when something now is claimed for the "professional," I'm thinking that it's more along the lines of "hard to use" and "not streamlined for smooth user experience." So, regardless of how great their promotional videos are on this tablet, I'm not getting my hopes too far up, though I sure would like for it to work just as smooth and seamless as they make it seem: