Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Microsoft & The Tablet Wars

Lewis

Member
Five Reasons Microsoft Can Still Win the Tablet War

By Tony Bradley, PCWorld
Microsoft has let it be known that the next version of Windows will run on ARM-architecture, and it has demonstrated early builds of Windows 8--or whatever Microsoft ultimately calls the next OS--on a tablet at both CES 2011, and MIX '11. While Microsoft did a quick 180 on comments from Steve Ballmer confirming a 2012 launch of Windows 8, we know it's coming sometime, and when it does it may quickly dominate the tablet market.
Similar Articles:


Why? Well, here are five reasons that MIcrosoft could come from behind and ultimately win the tablet war.
214116-windows_8_binoculars_original.jpg
If Microsoft plays its cards right, it could still come out on top in the tablet market.1. Uniform Experience. Microsoft Windows enjoys a dominant market share of nearly 90 percent for desktop operating systems. While the tablet is a different environment than the desktop, users will appreciate having a tablet that has a look and feel consistent with what they're already familiar with.
2. Software Library. Intel informed investors that the ARM version(s) of Windows will not be able to run legacy software, so that could significantly reduce the available software for a Windows tablet. But, Microsoft declared that Intel was out of line in speculating, and it has already demonstrated both Microsoft Office and Internet Explorer 10 on ARM-based tablets.
Even if Intel is correct--and it seems quite possible it could be--Microsoft could still provide developers with the tools necessary to make porting from x86 to ARM as simple as possible. The more users can use the exact same software they are already comfortable with from their desktop, the more successful the tablet will be.
3. Diverse Hardware. Apple dominates the tablet market right now, but with Apple you just have the iPad 2. Granted, it has a variety of models, but overall an iPad 2 is an iPad 2. A Microsoft Windows tablet will most likely follow in the footsteps of the current array of Android tablets with a variety of shapes and sizes to choose from. That diversity gives users more options to choose the tablet form factor and hardware specs that work best for them rather than using the one-size-fits-all approach.
4. Price? You might notice the question mark. On the one hand, different vendors creating rival tablets will drive some price competition--both in the tablet industry overall, and among other Windows tablets. The freedom to use different hardware specs will also enable some cost cutting. But, as it stands now, Apple seems to have cornered the market on many of the key components of tablets, making it difficult for other vendors to purchase the hardware necessary to make tablets in sufficient volume to bring the price down. So, price is a gray area that may be hard to deliver.
5. No Rush. Yes, I understand that Microsoft is not new to tablets. Microsoft has been pushing slate or tablet style PCs for a decade with little success. But, as far as the 'iPad generation' of tablets goes, Microsoft is sitting on the sidelines so far. Microsoft strategy seems to be focused on getting it right, rather than racing to market.
If you look at current iPad rivals, it seems that rushing incomplete, or unfinished tablets to market can have dubious results. The Motorola Xoom and BlackBerry PlayBook were both hailed as potential competitors for the iPad, but both hit the street missing key elements, and leaving users wanting more--resulting in disappointing sales and a first impression for users that may haunt future tablet efforts.
If Microsoft can get it right, and deliver a familiar Windows experience--but in a way that is uniquely suited for a mobile tablet, and deliver it at a price that can compete head to head with the iPad, it could still come out of nowhere and eventually dominate tablets as it dominates desktops.
Of course, I still think that a tablet is not a PC, and that it is a mistake to try and put the Windows desktop in a mobile tablet. In my opinion, Microsoft should be developing a tablet version of the Windows Phone 7 platform because Windows Phone 7 has been designed from the ground up to be a mobile OS.
Five Reasons Microsoft Can Still Win the Tablet War | PCWorld Business Center
 
Microsoft strategy seems to be focused on getting it right, rather than racing to market.....

Well, if they want to get it right, then they have to deal with their disproportionately high incidents of viruses. If they don't change the fundamental nature of their OS, it will be the same thing as we've always gotten from them.

Anyone that has been reading my posts in the Tech section knows that I've been predicting over and over again that when Microsoft enters more the portable device market, people will be dealing with viruses like they never had before.

And I said this ad nauseum, but I'll say it again. It will be awfully frustrating to have your teenage daughter broken down on the back road in the middle of nowhere and then when she uses her windows 8 phone she can't call home because the virus she picked up will direct her to porn sites instead.

When you get virtually no viruses on Linux and Mac (as most malware is the trojan variety that a user is tricked into downloading as opposed to Microsoft that lets everything and anything install in the background without you knowing about it), people will be "all of a sudden" surprised when they have to deal with viruses like they never had before and they won't put up with it.

So for Microsoft's sake, I hope they ditch that trash they call an operating system and go back to the blackboard and create something like on a similar platform that Linux uses. Then, and only then will they be successful and not fail in this market. So, maybe they are right, they better not rush things now because they have their work cut out for them.
 
Well, if they want to get it right, then they have to deal with their disproportionately high incidents of viruses. If they don't change the fundamental nature of their OS, it will be the same thing as we've always gotten from them.

Anyone that has been reading my posts in the Tech section knows that I've been predicting over and over again that when Microsoft enters more the portable device market, people will be dealing with viruses like they never had before.

And I said this ad nauseum, but I'll say it again. It will be awfully frustrating to have your teenage daughter broken down on the back road in the middle of nowhere and then when she uses her windows 8 phone she can't call home because the virus she picked up will direct her to porn sites instead.

When you get virtually no viruses on Linux and Mac (as most malware is the trojan variety that a user is tricked into downloading as opposed to Microsoft that lets everything and anything install in the background without you knowing about it), people will be "all of a sudden" surprised when they have to deal with viruses like they never had before and they won't put up with it.

So for Microsoft's sake, I hope they ditch that trash they call an operating system and go back to the blackboard and create something like on a similar platform that Linux uses. Then, and only then will they be successful and not fail in this market. So, maybe they are right, they better not rush things now because they have their work cut out for them.
linux and mac are based on an ibm os that was designed to run networks in the late 60's ere the internet . go figure. i cant remember the original name of that program.
 
linux and mac are based on an ibm os that was designed to run networks in the late 60's ere the internet . go figure. i cant remember the original name of that program.

You mean UNIX? That was developed right over here in Bell Labs to my understanding. I used to be gainfully employed in the Allentown, Pa plant that was Western Electric for 24 years. Over there we used to use Linux for the testing programs. I am not personally proficient with Linux other than the experience I have at home and just commonly using it. I once knew the CLI but forgotten a lot of it.

As much as I bash Microsoft, these two old computers here still use it. I will rebuild one of them when the hardware dies (or Microsoft gives me a major virus) and convert to Linux, although I can run Linux live on CD now if I want (like the time this forum got a virus I used Linux to post). My portable device, eg. netbooks use android and my wife's lap top is Mac. So, in reality, it's a mixture here, but I'm gradually getting away from Microsoft.
 
linux and mac are based on an ibm os that was designed to run networks in the late 60's ere the internet . go figure. i cant remember the original name of that program.
I know for a fact that Linux was modeled after Unix. Apple may have used Unix as their model also.

The networking project was called, ARPAnet. I really don't remember IBM's role in all of this other than supplying one of the mainframes used in the project. The project was first used to link Universities together. The project started in 1969.
 
As much as I bash Microsoft, these two old computers here still use it. I will rebuild one of them when the hardware dies (or Microsoft gives me a major virus) and convert to Linux, although I can run Linux live on CD now if I want (like the time this forum got a virus I used Linux to post). My portable device, eg. netbooks use android and my wife's lap top is Mac. So, in reality, it's a mixture here, but I'm gradually getting away from Microsoft.
Tim, why not install Linux on the existing PCs? Run Ubuntu's setup while in Windows and will guide you through the procedure . It doesn't repartition or reformat and doesn't take all that much space. It should also set up the Boot manager for you so you can multi-boot OSs.

10.04 LTS is out too! Actually, it's been out for a year now, but I'm lazy sometimes and haven't gotten the chance to upgrade. :lol
 
I know for a fact that Linux was modeled after Unix. Apple may have used Unix as their model also.

The networking project was called, ARPAnet. I really don't remember IBM's role in all of this other than supplying one of the mainframes used in the project. The project was first used to link Universities together. The project started in 1969.
All of that information is right here Vic
Linux - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Back
Top