ie8 fix
Click Here

Report: Microsoft to show tablet version of Windows 8 next week

By | May 26, 2011, 11:57am PDT

Bloomberg is adding fuel to the rumor fires claiming that Microsoft may show off the tablet version of Windows 8 next week at the AllThingsD conference. If and when that happens, here’s what to watch for.

Steven Sinofsky, the President of Microsoft’s Windows client division, is slated to take the stage during the three-day confab, which kicks off on May 29. Ever since Sinofsky’s appearance at the show was confirmed earlier this week, there’s been talk that he’d show off an updated version of Windows 8 there.

In spite of Microsoft’s vague claims about the accuracy of recent Windows 8 information that has leaked and been announced (by both Microsoft partners and Microsoft’s own CEO), it is widely believed that there will be different user interfaces on different versions of the operating system. The version tailored to run on ARM-based tablets is expected to sport a touch-centric user interface, which has been known both as MoSH (modern shell) and the “Immersive” user interface.

As WithinWindows’ Rafael Rivera noted in April, the immersive UI seems to be “a Windows Phone-inspired, Metro-like, tiles-based user interface as an alternative to the more mainstream Aero and Aero Lite (formerly Aero Basic) UIs.” I’ve also discussed the significance of the “immersive” concept. The immersive UI is expected to be the primary (if not sole) interface for Windows 8 tablets and slates. The Aero interface is expected to be more of a classic Windows Shell and will be the UI for Windows 8 desktops and non-touch-centric Windows PCs.

With Sinofsky being Sinofsky, I’m doubtful that we’ll hear him refer to anything as “Windows 8″ next week at the AllThingsD show. (He prefers to call the next version of Windows “Windows Next.”) I’m also highly doubtful he’ll let anyone see a build number or anything that indicates how far along Microsoft is with the development of Windows 8. (I’m hearing Microsoft is fairly well along with Milestone 3, and that June 2011 may mark the end-of-development for that internal milestone build.)

If Sinofsky decides to show Windows 8 next week — and don’t let anyone kid you, it’s his decision as to whether he does or not — he’ll do so to show the naysayers that Microsoft isn’t totally clueless about slates/tablets.

I’ve heard Microsoft may share more details about Windows 8/Windows Next at the company’s upcoming Worldwide Partner Conference in mid-July in Los Angeles. That may seem like a strange venue, but Microsoft’s resellers are its salesforce. And the keynote line-up for the WPC event includes a disproportionate number of Microsoft OEM (original equipment manufacturer) execs. The WPC is the place Microsoft often shares its roadmaps with its partners and highlights new PCs and devices that it wants them to go out and sell.

The real launch pad for Windows 8 remains the company’s mid-September developers conference, which may or may not ultimately be named as the Windows Developer Conference (WDC). Microsoft is widely believed to be planning to deliver to testers a first preview or beta of Windows 8 in conjunction with that conference. Hey, maybe we’ll even hear about the Jupiter app model/platform and Visual Studio 2012 at that time. The upcoming devcon is slated for September 13 to 16 in Anaheim, Calif.

While DigiTimes reported earlier this week that Microsoft and its partners are planning to get Windows 8 on ARM out before the end of calendar 2011, I’m still hearing and believing that Microsoft isn’t going to deliver certain versions of Windows 8 ahead of others. My contacts continue to believe that Microsoft will get the next version of Windows out in 2012, just like Ballmer said this week (in spite of a weak attempt to change the meaning of his original statements).

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Mary Jo has covered the tech industry for more than 25 years for a variety of publications and Web sites, and is a frequent guest on radio, TV and podcasts, speaking about all things Microsoft-related. She is the author of Microsoft 2.0: How Microsoft plans to stay relevant in the post-Gates era (John Wiley & Sons, 2008).

Disclosure

Mary-Jo Foley

Freelance journalist/blogger Mary Jo Foley has nothing to disclose. WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get). I do not own Microsoft stock or stock in any of its partners or competitors. I have no business ventures that are sponsored by/funded by Microsoft or any of its partners or competitors.

Biography

Mary-Jo Foley

Mary Jo Foley has covered the tech industry for 25 years for a variety of publications, including ZDNet, eWeek and Baseline. She has kept close tabs on Microsoft strategy, products and technologies for the past 10 years. In the late 1990s, she penned the award-winning "At The Evil Empire" column for ZDNet, and more recently the Microsoft Watch blog for Ziff Davis.

Got a tip? Send her an email with your rants, rumors, tips and tattles. Confidentiality guaranteed.

75
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Report: Microsoft to show tablet version of Windows 8 next week
dsfwrryd1301-24353654314296078269402150143345 10th Nov
zalnky,good post!
0 Votes
+ -
How many times...
Economister 26th May 2011
have they shown tablets do far?

I lost count, and they still have trouble selling them.
@Economister
and Ballmer will be laught out of the room
by people using Android tablets!
@Linux Geek

Android tablets? Are those things still around? wink
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
I saw my first Android tablet in the wild -
Will Pharaoh 26th May 2011
@Linux Geek
They where using it to prop open a window at a store I was at because the A/C was broken.
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
@Linux Geek
I don't think so. Windows Tablets are going to out-sell Android Tablets and even the iPad. People don't realize that if you have a big engine, you're going to use more gas. The eye-candy in Windows alone is worth the reduced battery life. I love Windows but also have a lot of respect for Apple products.
@Linux Geek
There's no such thing as an 'Android Tablet'. Tablets have both input and output capabilities. Android - and Apple for that matter - have no input capability (other than the stupid typing on an onscreen typewriter - sheesh!). They aren't even tablets. They're READERS.

Moreover, how can anyone take a guy who can't even spell 'laughed' seriously?
@Linux Geek I don't think that 5 people are going to be able to laugh him out of a room wink
@Major Plonquer No imput capability? You can use a keyboard on both Android tablets and the iPad. Were you just trying to prove you don't know what you are talking about?
0 Votes
+ -
Android Tablets?
Will Pharaoh 26th May 2011
@Economister
I agree, not the hotest selling devices on the market. I think a Windows tablet will change all that.
0 Votes
+ -
Look, ...
Economister 26th May 2011
@Will Pharaoh

I would not mind a tablet that could run Windows, but it would have to have a good touch interface, run my legacy stuff, have comparable size, weight, performance including HDMI out and battery life, AND not cost a great deal more than current tablets.

I am not sure such a device is technically or economically feasible, at least not for the foreseeable future. The closest I can come is a netbook, but they are bigger, heavier and do not have a touch interface.
0 Votes
+ -
I agree with you there
Will Pharaoh 26th May 2011
@Will Pharaoh
things like the iPad and Android tablets are really geared more towards people just looking for content absortion (music, movies, eReader, ect) not really a "go on the road lets get some creation going" device, and that's what they've been designed for.

I'm all for seeing what Windows 8 on a tablet will be - If it's more then an entertainment device ot'll do good, if it's just another music, movies, eReader then it'll have some competition out there and will likely not sell any more then the current crop of Android tablets.
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
Oh look, flag me for the sake of flagging
Will Pharaoh 26th May 2011
@Will Pharaoh
I don't see anything nasty or offensive, but lets flag me because you don't like the message. Very childish.
  • Flagged
@Will Pharaoh

I have an Acer convertible tablet running Win 7 - think it was released over a year ago. It works as you would expect as a netbook and as a tablet when I want that form factor - battery life around 8 hours, 4G memory, dual core, 1366x768 screen. As well as touch it also has a stylus for those times when you want to write or you need some precision.

I look forward to a Win 8 tile based UI as slick as my WP7 phone.
Don't you agree Lovie ? ....................
@Economister

Oh, MS have tried tablets plenty of times without much more than niche success but there is a reasonable possibility that they might be more successful this time.

First, Apple has paved the way on how a small touchscreen device ought to work and MS then (in my opinion) evolutionarily improved upon it with the WP7 interface. Without Apple MS would still be pretty clueless here. If they can bring Metro to tablets while keeping compatibility with W7 apps they would actually have a pretty compelling offering.

Second is hardware. The first tablets MS were too heavy, too battery poor, too hot, too slow, too expensive, and not finger friendly. The current crop have gotten better but they usually still have an Achilles heel with at least one of those. The next round of hardware might very well solve it sufficiently.
0 Votes
+ -
@SlithyTove Don't be silly. The WP7 is completely revolutionary. It is different then WinMo 6.5, iPhone and Android interface. By the way, I own a Droid Incredible.

Without competition, no one would really improve. Microsoft is pretty clueless ... really! Have you worked for Microsoft or is this just based on the facts that your and Apple boy.

Also, Apple had a revolutionary approach. Just look at Mac OS 8 and Mac OS 9. Almost identical. It was Mac OS X that was more Revolutionary and that is debatable.

It was probably because of Microsoft's failure with tablets that lead Apple to get a clear vision of how they should be done. Of course, they would study these results to find out what the people want. It just makes sense.
@Economister
I just ordered my Windows tablet 0.6 in thick, 2 lbs, gorilla glass, 8 hr battery, SSD, Wi-Fi, Win 7 Pro, multi-touch *and* stylus. And rugged (4 ft drop). It arrives in 3 weeks. It's for my industrial clients. In other words, the light weight tablets are coming, and they are having no trouble selling these, even though they are $990. This article is about an alternative UI for Windows that makes it closer to what the Win Phone has.
@batpox

What tablet? Link? I need something like that so our Doctors can read images on the fly.
@Economister ... because OEMs have sold them as "convertibles" at premium price points. Apple has re-defined what it means to be a "tablet" and Android will see that the price will come down.
0 Votes
+ -
Think it already started....
cosuna 26th May 2011
@facebook@... :
...but with the "accept no reason" Windows fanboyz... a far more nasty crowd... I'd prefer the 1800's Congress men that defended the United States Steel (monopoly) and the United Fruit (government tumbler in Central America)...

Defending MS is so 90's... so Bush's era...
0 Votes
+ -
Bizarre
WilErz 26th May 2011
@ cosuna

Erm, the US president in the 1990s was Bill Clinton, US Steel was founded in 1901 and United Fruit was founded in 1899. The rest of your comment is equally bizarre.
0 Votes
+ -
and a much better economy than what the democrats and Obama have unleashed upon the American people.

Perhaps you need to get a much better source for your news and information, because, you have things completely backwards, and your "facts" are completely wrong.
  • Flagged
@adornoe - are you completely ignorant? The economy collapsed world-wide BECAUSE of Bush. He waged two wars, neither of which neutralized the ultimate target but which spend practically all the cash America had available. He also gave Wall St. The right to self-regulate which enabled the mortgage and derivative idiocy that led to the world-wide economic collapse.

Obama is trying to repair the mess left behind after Bush.
when you fail to take into consideration the real causes of the economic collapse.

The economic collapse was something that had been building up for decades, and it just happened to take the dive while Bush was in office, but, no matter who the president or party in office at the time, the collapse would've happened anyway.

The same way you would like to blame Bush, I could just as easily blame the democrats, who were in actual control of the congress and spending starting in 2006, and things started to go downhill starting in 2006. But, the reality is that, 2006, nor the Bush years, were the culprits.

The biggest culprit for the collapse was the bloated housing market, with the easy lending which gave away mortgages to people who couldn't afford their homes. That was the making of the democrats, and when Bush tried to reign in the banking and lending institutions, the democrats blocked his every move, with Barney Frank being the most visible of those democrats and Nancy Pelosi backing him all the way. And, let's not forget the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were instrumental in the easy lending for those mortgages, and actually encouraging banks to lend to people who were completely unqualified to own homes. Again, those were creations of the democrats. And, let's not forget the biggest culprit in the whole mess, that being the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), passed by democrats and Jimmy carter, which started the whole lending and housing crisis. Without the CRA, the housing crisis would never have occurred, and the economy would not have crashed. Again, those were creations of democrats, and it took several decades before the damage would catch up with the economy.

The Wall Street people were basically unregulated, but, not because of Bush, since he was trying to reign them in, while it was actually the democrats who blocked Bush every time he tried to act against the banks and lending institutions. Look it up, and study up. You have things completely backwards.

The "Bush" wars were expenses, but they were manageable with the funding available, and the real cause of the economic collapse was a lot more involved than you are able to comprehend.
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
@adornoe... Neither party is exactly blameless, but give credit to where credit is due. It was Bush that pulled us into Iraq, it was Bush who had a knee jerk reaction that sent us into Afghanistan. 10Trillion Dollars and hundred thousand lives either lost, injured, or otherwise destroyed in the pursuit of this so called war on terrorism. The war was worse than that Terrorist act.

What did Osama say? That he would bankrupt this country, and so far he is winning that battle, even from the grave. And while you are busy fighting over whose to blame, both parties want to spend more money on the military.

When Clinton left office the DoD budget was a little over 300Bp/y, now it is over 800B p/y, most of that was run up during the Bush administration, but certainly has continued to grow under Obama, and both parties want to add more billions to the DoD, and this doesn't even count the continued cost of the military actions still going on in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

Our budgetary problems won't be solved until we end the war on terror, bring all of our troops home, close out our meaningless empire, cut spending on the DoD, Fix Social Security and Medicare, and Fix our ridiculous tax system.

So go ahead and despise the democrats all you want, but your beloved Republican Party isn't any better. By the way, elections aren't won because of Republican or Democrats, they are won because of independents, who tend to be socially liberal, but fiscally conservative, which is why we have wild swings in the control of power.
@adornoe

I don't see how you can say the crash was going to happen anyway as it was out of their control, but then give credit to 4% unemployment to them, it's two sides of the same coin.

The reality is it doesn't matter whether you have Democrats or Republicans in charge, to quote Bill Hicks
"I like the puppet on the left"
"Well the puppet on the right is more to my liking"
"Hey wait a minute, there's the same guy holding up both puppets"
I don't see how you can say the crash was going to happen anyway as it was out of their control,

The crash was a long time in the making, and, while presidents and congresses ignored the problem, the problem continued to increase in dimensions, and, the crash was inevitable. It's exactly like a balloon, which, when air is being blown into it, it expands, and eventually, it's going to give out and blow.

The real-estate sector had a problem which was building up while the rest of the economy continued along with not too many worries. But, with real-estate being such a major part of the economy, driving between 1/4 to 1/3 of the economy, when that bubble burst, the effects were felt in the whole economic system.

but then give credit to 4% unemployment to them, it's two sides of the same coin.

It's possible to have economic growth while the underlying foundations of the system are building up to a disaster. The disaster could not be avoided, especially when there were just too many who preferred to demagogue and lie to the American people about how the real-estate markets were doing just fine.

The reality is it doesn't matter whether you have Democrats or Republicans in charge,

Bull!

It matters greatly!

When you have clear choices between market forces and government control, the market choices are always preferable. Democrats are the government advocates, while republicans are the market choices. It is a choice between free-enterprise and socialism. I'll take the free-enterprise system any time.

to quote Bill Hicks

Apparently, Bill Hicks is an idiot.

"I like the puppet on the left"
"Well the puppet on the right is more to my liking"
"Hey wait a minute, there's the same guy holding up both puppets"

Cute, but dumb.
  • Flagged
Neither party is exactly blameless,


Both parties contributed to the problem, but the underlying foundation for the economic decline was due to democratic presidents and congresses. The republicans contributed to the problem by not undoing the damage or programs when they had a chance.


but give credit to where credit is due.


I already gave most of the credit for the economic collapse to the democrats, who rightfully deserve it.

It was Bush that pulled us into Iraq, it was Bush who had a knee jerk reaction that sent us into Afghanistan.

Whatever you want to believe about Iraq and Afghanistan and about Bush dragging us into those wars, none of it had anything to do with the economic collapse. Most of the funding for the wars was already budgeted for with the regular budgeting that occurs. Whether we had those wars or not, the economic collapse wouldve occurred anyway.

10Trillion Dollars and hundred thousand lives either lost, injured, or otherwise destroyed in the pursuit of this so called war on terrorism. The war was worse than that Terrorist act.

That is so ignorant.

The trillion dollars deficit and the trillion dollar debts, are things quite apart from the wars. The wars were paid for, and the deficits under Bush were quite manageable and came very close to getting balanced. Its the real estate markets and the ruinous government spending that brought the whole system to its knees. The collapse of 2008 was due to entirely different forces, and not at all to any wars.

What did Osama say? That he would bankrupt this country, and so far he is winning that battle, even from the grave.

Replace the name Osama with Obama, and you would be more correct in your statement, except that Obama is not in a grave.

And while you are busy fighting over whose to blame, both parties want to spend more money on the military.

I dont mind spending money for defense, since its the only appropriation in the constitution which is required. Everything else is actually unconstitutional. Social spending is whats ruined the best economy that the world had ever known. However, the democrats are the ones advocating for cutting defense spending and using the savings for more social spending. Whatever savings democrats get from one side of the equation, theyll quickly find some other use on the spending side of the equation. Democrats dont know how to cut spending, and theyve not about to care.
  • Flagged
When Clinton left office the DoD budget was a little over 300Bp/y, now it is over 800B p/y, most of that was run up during the Bush administration,

Well, actually, when Clinton was in office, he had been cutting the budget for defense, while using those savings to increase spending in social spending. If Clinton had not cut military spending, chances are that, it would have increased according to the needs, but Clinton felt that, after the crumbling of the Soviet Empire and the end of the cold war, that military spending did not need to be so high, but, one thing that democrats and Clinton learned Is, that, when it comes to Americas enemies, they dont care about our reduction and our desire for peace, and thus, we ended up with a 9/11 and wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq and around the world against terrorism. When wars are waged, spending necessarily have to go up.

However, one thing that people fail to understand is that, expenses for war aren't as high as some estimate, since the military expenses would have been not that much less if there hadn't been a war. The expenses to maintain troops and equipment and to purchase new equipment, would still have been needed, and deploying troops and equipment to war, is not that much more expensive than if they were just sitting around. The biggest difference is, of course, in lives lost, and in replacement of equipment damaged during war, but even there, studies have shown that, loss of personnel during war was not that much different than if they hadn't been at war. People still die from accidents and from diseases while serving in the military, just like everyday people not in the military. Many of the injuries and deaths that were reported as caused by war, were not from hostile or combat action.

but certainly has continued to grow under Obama, and both parties want to add more billions to the DoD,

What Obama has learned is that, demagogueing an issue while running for office is quite different from having to take responsible action, and that includes maintaining a military in good ready state. Its very easy to sit back at a desk and type away your gripes about military spending, but, its quite different when you have to take decisive action to keep America safe, and there never should be limit to how much should be spent on defense, because, that is, again, what keeps the country safe and the enemy at bay.

and this doesn't even count the continued cost of the military actions still going on in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

Like Ive already explained, the cost of waging war is not drastically different from just maintaining those troops and equipment in a state of readiness. Deployment always requires more money, but the expense is not that much higher. So, if the cost to maintain a division in a state of readiness is, say, around $10 billion per year, that is the same expense as when they're deployed to war, except that, it will require, perhaps, 1 or 2 or 3 billion dollars more because of the higher cost when deployed. Now, what democrats look at, when they mention cost of war, is the cost of maintaining that division, which might be some $10-14 billion dollars while at war. However, that is not the cost for that division being at war, because, that division, when at home, would still have cost some $10 billion dollars, just sitting around. The true cost of the war would have to be the difference between the regular military maintenance, and the slightly higher cost while at war. The cost in lives cannot ever be measured in a monetary sense, but, the cost of freedom is never low, no matter how one measures that cost.

Our budgetary problems won't be solved until we end the war on terror,

Stop being naive. Do you think that terrorists are going to go along with us deciding, unilaterally, that, we are no longer going to do battle against terrorism? Grow up.
  • Flagged
bring all of our troops home,

Ignoring the problem isn?t going to solve the problem. That is what brought on 9/11. We cannot just hope for the enemy to vanish.

close out our meaningless empire,

That is so stupid! What empire is that? An empire, with the strength of the United States, if they had wanted to, would?ve been able to ?control? most, if not all, of the world. But, that?s not what the U.S. has been throughout its history.

cut spending on the DoD,

Cutting military spending, would be at our peril. Grow up.

Fix Social Security and Medicare,

That is where spending needs to be cut, because, that is what has ruined what used to be the best and biggest economy the world had ever known. Socialism always destroys any country that tries to implement the idiotic system. The economic collapse is further demonstration that, socialism is destructive.

and Fix our ridiculous tax system.

That is the only part of your post that I can agree with.

So go ahead and despise the democrats all you want,

It?s not about despising, because, I used to be a democrat myself, a very liberal one at that. But, lessons have to be learned, and, as I grew older, I also grew more knowledgeable and wiser. What I would wish for all democrats, is that they learn that, big government is not the solution, it?s the problem and the enemy of the people.

but your beloved Republican Party isn't any better.

Republicans haven?t been republicans for a long time, preferring to go along just to get along, and borrowing democrat tactics that use government solutions to buy votes. That is where both Bushes went wrong, were they believed that, the best way to pull votes from the democrats, was to act like democrats. That tactic backfired with Bush 41. With Bush 43, the Medi care Part D program, that added the ?affordable? drugs portion to Medicare, is where government actually got bigger during his administration; it wasn?t because of the wars that government expenses grew larger, it was because of the higher social spending.
  • Flagged
By the way, elections aren't won because of Republican or Democrats, they are won because of independents,

Actually, youre clueless.

Independents do vote, but they vote for either democrats or republicans. Guess who determines who the democratic party or republican party candidate is going to be for any election? Ill give you a hint: its the democratic party or the republican party. Independents vote for democrats or republicans, so, elections are, indeed, won because of democrats or republicans. Learn to be a bit more analytical, and forget your wishful and hopeful thinking. Reality is a better teacher than idealistic thinking.

who tend to be socially liberal,

Nonsense!

You have things exactly backwards.

Independents, when actually polled, have always tended to be more fiscally conservative, and not proponents of social spending by government. They are, after all, independent, and socially liberal people, are big government proponents. So, you have things exactly backwards.

Furthermore, when it comes to conservative values versus socialist values, most of the country, according to polls, are social conservatives, with only about 19% preferring to call themselves liberals or socialists.

but fiscally conservative,

That is what matters the most, because, government tends to be more obstructive and intrusive in fiscal matters, and thats what hurts the country the most. People tend to vote with their wallets. Most independents have lately stated that, they want to reign in government spending.

which is why we have wild swings in the control of power.

Most of the swings in power are due to the ignorance demonstrated by the voters, who lack the knowledge to make informed decisions, and dont know how to examine the long-term consequences of their actions and voting. If all voters took it upon themselves to learn the facts, and to be analytical, chances are that democrats would lost most elections. To democrats, an ignorant and dumbed-down electorate, is their best weapon and hope. Nancy Pelosi demonstrated that very well when she needed to do all of her Obamacare bargaining away from the public eye, and she said that herself when she said pass the bill so you can find out whats in it. Thats how democrats can get away with what they do. They actually work against the best needs of the people, and the people then are left to wonder where did the country go wrong with the economic collapse.

Its the democrats that are the problem. Its republicans who act like democrats who are the problem. But, mostly, its people like you, who fail to learn the facts and who fail to be analytical, before making decisions.
  • Flagged
I'm pretty satisfied with my Win7 convertible at the moment, but I'm always open to an upgrade. Perhaps within the next two years, if the funds allow it.
The day that Microsoft really cracks the tablet market will be such an expensive day for me...
this implies, incorrectly I believe, that this interface is for some seemingly nonsenseical reason, somehow tailored for ARM. I think the reality is it's tailored for the touch-centric tablet form factor in general and there wouldn't be any difference for an intel based soc tablet. Obviously they demo on ARM to show naysayers that they have it ported, but otherwise they could just as easily demo it on a shiny new intel tablet.
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
Intel and ARM
Mary Jo Foley 26th May 2011
Hi. It's probably true that not all Win8 tablets will be ARM-based. But many see ARM as being a better chip for devices like tablets. Intel is trying to fix this with newer generations of its chips, but I think you can read between the lines of Intel's Renee James' remarks last week that Intel is frustrated about ARM getting most of the tablet love from MS and various OEMs...

http://zd.net/iEyZFW

Just my two cents. MJ
@Johnny Vegas

ARM processors historically support better battery life without signification performance loss. Of course, this history is based on small or stripped mobile OS's. W8 for tablets will be the first full-blown OS.
0 Votes
+ -
@Johnny Vegas

The biggest reason why Win7 is doing so poorly on tablets is because it is not a touch centric UI. Its lack of usability in a tablet format is not a commentary on the quality of Windows it is just a symptom stemming from where it came from (being used with a keyboard and mouse).

Intel's next generation of 22nm chips (with the "3D gate" design) will enable a 32% improvement in power consumption and when they move to 14 nm in the next generation (believe it or not) x86 may surpass ARMs power sipping capabilities.

Maintaining x86 enables backwards compatibility for applications which will not be likely with ARM (although we shall see what MS may have up their sleeve). This is huge for business clients.

The fat lady is yet to sing here
0 Votes
+ -
In this fast paced market, it is moot to show something before a year of release. All the excitement and charm goes away by the time it release. I don't like this stupid strategy of Microsoft. They release good products, but their strategy and marketing kills them.
@animageofmine1,

Apple's WWDC 2011 is June 6th through 10th. These announcements are an attempt to stay relevant in the public's eye. If history plays out again, Apple will make product announcements that will tie up the tech Buzz machine for six to eight weeks after WWDC. Vendor like Microsoft, Google, Motorola, etc feel that if they don't demo / sell unfinished prototypes then they will fall even farther behind.
@YaBaby Ok,I agree to that point, but they should limit the details ! Like for WP7, look at iPhone 5 and Android, they just show off the features before a week/two of release and its available for order very soon. Target audience is excited and a lot of folks with place an order. It works. Atleast, I would do so if I were Ballmer.
0 Votes
+ -
@YaBaby

Just today, CitiBank said they think MSFT is not too late to the tablet marketplace, and that they believe MS may bring newer versions of the OS in tablet form first. I still think this is very possible.

The big point is, Apple and others are innovating faster than the corporate asset usage cycle. While this is fine for itchy tech nuts like us (at least me) most people don't upgrade that quickly.

Tablets for consumers are still in the early adopter phase, bleeding into the early majority. In corporate America, we are just getting into the early adopter phase.

We are a long way off from any company being a lock or locked out. And in the corporate environment, it would be foolish to say MSFT is able to be locked out, at least not for a long time.

MY $0.02 -
whatever alternative products might exist at the moment when something better might be soon coming to market.

That strategy has worked very well in the past, for many different products and manufacturers.
I hope there are enough intelligent humans out there, who dont support the next possible M$ Monopoly!
@Watchman247

and here I was hoping people would use whatever suits their needs without bias..... oh well.
@Watchman247 Hey, I'm an intelligent human who prefers Windows and Linux, so keep your mouth shut.
@Watchman247

I second what Grayson said.
Competition is good! This will bring the much needed competition to tablets.
0 Votes
+ -
It is interesting to note
Dietrich T. Schmitz, *~* Your Linux Advocate 26th May 2011
Mary Jo reports in advance on a yet to release to production tablet that will run on a yet to be released to production operating system.

All fine and I expect that from Mary Jo. At least she is consistent and predictable.

What is interesting to note is that for the entire week, not one ZDnet blogger has written anything about the Meego conference in San Francisco held this week.

Is there a reason for this?
@Dietrich T. Schmitz, *~* Your Linux Advocate

Mary Jo reports in advance on a yet to release to production tablet that will run on a yet to be released to production operating system.

Well..... yeah. That's why we read these things. If I wanted to know about things that are out now I'd be on Best Buy's website.

What is interesting to note is that for the entire week, not one ZDnet blogger has written anything about the Meego conference in San Francisco held this week.

Probably something to do with Nokia driving a stake through Meego's heart.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Report: Microsoft to show tablet version of Windows 8 next week
dsfwrryd1301-24353654314296078269402150143345 10th Nov
zalnky,good post!

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix