back
15 comments
It's unclear how quickly Microsoft can deliver a new tablet-friendly version of Windows. The next major release of the operating system, Windows 8, isn't expected until 2012 some time. "They're desperate to show they're in the game," one of the people familiar with Microsoft said.

Microsoft shouldn't be trying to show they're "in the game" - they should be rewriting the game. Apple didn't release the iPad or the iPod to be in a game. Both were widely derided (even here on HN with the iPad) but resulted in an entirely new "game" others were left to catch up with.

Microsoft doesn't need to play catchup - it needs to start inventing the future again (Kinect hints at what they can pull off).

At various points in its history, Microsoft Windows NT and various descendants have been available on Alpha, MIPS, Itanium and PowerPC, in addition to the more widely-known 32- and 64-bit x86 versions.

The Windows Embedded version has been (is?) available for ARM, MIPS, Hitachi SH and x86.

There have been some embedded and stripped Windows boxes used for various purposes. Thin clients and storage controllers, for instance.

The Windows x86 application market hasn't been interested in the other architectures. This because getting an installed base from x86 to another architecture is No Small Effort, both for Microsoft, and for all of the other organizations that supply or use Windows software. The FX!32 translation services were unsuccessful in encouraging folks to use Windows applications on Alpha, for instance. And if you don't get the installed base moved to your new target, you then get to own the costs of fragmentation and of running what you've brought out.

Beyond the references to iOS in the article, I'd also expect this work is in response to Google's Android and HP's WebOS, too. Android establishes the price floor, iOS aims at the revenue (and with a finger-targeted UI), and WebOS is owned by a very large Windows hardware partner.

Interesting times for the Microsoft folks.

Not available for TWO YEARS? Did I read that correctly? Right now to compete Microsoft should be on a 3 to 6 month release schedule.
I'm not an OS guy, but don't you think for something as (overly) complex as Windows the regression cycle alone would be 3 to 6 months?
Many people have been saying for years that Microsoft should switch to an open source unix core to be more competitive and move faster like Apple (and because hackers tend to prefer unix). I've always thought MS had enough money to stick with Windows and still move fast... but now I wonder, or maybe they're slow because of bureaucracy, probably a bit of both.
Microsoft is huge on backwards-compatibility. Unix guys don't mind breaking a few eggs when they release a new kernel because anything that breaks can be patched up to work again - but when you're running boatloads of proprietary software that has to keep working, break-and-fix isn't really a viable model any more.
> Microsoft is huge on backwards-compatibility.

Are you sure about that? If I want to run old versions of IE, MS solution is to run a VM, probably because it's cheaper for them. At what point will it become more profitable for them to just tell people to use VMs for 20 year old software? Knowing that only businesses would need those.

To compete with what? Apple's 20% market share that has little to do with a distinguished operating system and more to do with hardware and culture?
Why would MS be on a 3-6mo release schedule when their big money comes from bigcos who are slow to require vetting of any new OS release and aren't going to invest the time/effort required to do that more than once every couple years?

(works for company only now rolling-out Windows7 as a beta for a small group of developers)

I hope this is true.

I still don't understand why they've been so apathetic to using the Windows Phone 7 OS on other types of devices. Many reviews say that the interface would scale well to other device types, and it already runs on ARM.

My hope is that they're being disingenuous, and in fact are doing exactly this.

I'm surprised the chromium laptops weren't based on ARM; Adobe even has an version of Flash... I guess nativeclient is only x86?
I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that there very well should be Chrome OS devices which run on ARM after it launches (just not the prototype developer device Google just released).
Lots of fluff and no comment from companies.
What about the OS on the new Windows phone?
This will be a good move if it's true.