Intel Plans Windows Vista Support for Handhelds

[Darius Wey]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/08/23/intel_ppw_plan/' target='_blank'>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/0...intel_ppw_plan/</a><br /><br /></div><i>"Intel CEO Paul Otellini today pledged to permit handheld users to run Windows Vista on their palmtops by the end of the decade. Microsoft chief Steve Ballmer may none be too happy that his Wintel colleague is setting out to rid the world of Windows Mobile but that's the way it goes. And anyway, Steve Jobs is a customer too, now. Otellini's pitch was a new generation of devices he dubbed the 'handtop'. The platform is nothing new, of course - PDAs, palmtops and handheld PCs have been around for years - but past attempts to create truly mobile, wireless micro PCs have been hindered by performance and battery life limitations."</i><br /><br />Intel's vision is to create a new wave of mobile devices equipped with 0.5W processors and Windows Vista. Don't break a sweat just yet. I'm adamant that Windows Mobile-based Pocket PCs and Smartphones will still be around for many years to come, and besides, Intel has set a forecast of 2010.<br /><br />At any rate, feel free to weigh in with your thoughts - are you <i>for</i> or <i>against</i> the use of a desktop OS on a mobile device? Perhaps OQO users could chime in as well, but bear in mind that Intel's idea of a handtop in 2010 will be vastly different to today's oh-so-pricey OQO.

[bcries]

Hmm... well, if you would permit me to arbitrarily define an OS as a base of program functionality (APIs and DLLs, etc.) + an interface framework (desktop, windows, etc.) then it seems reasonable to suggest that Windows Mobile has, until this point, modified both to fit the realities of the handheld.

These realities, respectively, are
1. smaller, less powerful hardware "under the hood" (because of size and battery limitations) than a PC
2. smaller screen / different input devices than a PC

So naturally, a handheld OS must differ from a desktop OS in these two ways. But which of the above two limitations ought to persist? The second, of course - as long as you want it in your pocket, you can't have a mouse and a full sized keyboard and a 19" screen.

The first limitation dwindles as technology gets better - smaller hard drives, faster processors that consume less power, better battery capacity, etc. Theoretically, the computing POWER of a handheld should always be able to catch up to that which was once only available in a PC. We've already seen this as Windows Mobile introduces the .NET CF, versions of SQL and DirectX, etc. Ultimately, the base program functionality of the OS is whatever the hardware can handle, and Windows Mobile grows closer to the desktop in this respect, each release.

But our persistent limitation (that is, the effect of size on interface) may be less distinctive in terms of Windows Vista and subsequent OSes, because Vista has abstracted the GUI. They've said "we'll present the programs to you in different ways depending on your graphics hardware". Not only that, but they've allowed the user to selectively zoom and scale program windows in Vista to different sizes. So far this involves minute differences like transparency and 3D desktop effects, but I can see where Intel is going with their thinking... what if the Mobile GUI was just another (smaller) way of presenting Vista to the user? What if apps with the same base capabilities (due to the same underlying APIs in the OS) could display one way on a PC monitor, but a different way on a handheld? Controls could change their look and behaviour to accomodate the stylus.

The trend with Windows seems to be about unifying the base capabilities, and then offering device-specific roles based around new interfaces. My suspicion is that this is where MCE is going - it will be just another, different GUI on top of Vista, one specifically designed for low-resolution displays (televisions) and remote-control navigation. What if Windows Mobile ultimately becomes "Handheld Computer Edition", with an interface customized for stylus and small screens? Why not?

[Duncan]

At any rate, feel free to weigh in with your thoughts - are you for or against the use of a desktop OS on a mobile device? Perhaps OQO users could chime in as well, but bear in mind that Intel's idea of a handtop in 2010 will be vastly different to today's oh-so-pricey OQO.

Currently it is a bad idea. I use a Fujitsu P7010 Lifebook - one of the very small laptops - and it the smallest screen on whic I can imagine Windows to be practical. Windows programs (and the OS) are designed for bigger screens and are too big and slow for use in a mobile device. The OQO is a bad idea.

By 2010, however, things will be very different. For one - I fully expect Win CE and full Windows to meet and merge. Win CE will become every more capable and powerful - while always being designed for small devices and small screens. Full Windows will, hopefully, become leaner, faster and more adaptable. Over time the two should meet in the middle to the extent that each will be able to run the programs of the other and become, at the very least, interchangeable. At best what is now Win CE will be by then a subset/variation of a much more adaptable general Windows - able to be big and powerful with loads of power, memory etc. needed, but also small and low powered.

[jgalindo]

I want both merged in the same pocket pc sized device.

Pocket PC Phone for quick information and communication on the go. Windows Vista that I am able to plug in to a bigger monitor for full PC capabilities.

Two different buttons would trigger which OS I want to use.

[Duncan]

I want both merged in the same pocket pc sized device.

Pocket PC Phone for quick information and communication on the go. Windows Vista that I am able to plug in to a bigger monitor for full PC capabilities.

Two different buttons would trigger which OS I want to use.

I'd be willing to bet that something like that will be a stepping stone along the way.

[gibson042]

I'd love to see a desktop OS on my handhelds, in the sense that they would be able to do everything that a desktop can... but they had better not keep the desktop user interface. As others have pointed out, desktop and CE Windows are already on a collision course as handhelds get more and more powerful, so an eventual OS merge with desktop, media, and pocket flavors seems almost inevitable at some point in the future.

I really have no loyalty to Windows Mobile per se, I would just like the design and user interface of my OS to match the design and user interface of my hardware. If that ends up being not "Windows Mobile 2010" but "Windows SRT Pocket Edition" (or "Second Edition Tablet Edition for Pocket PC"--gotta love Microsoft naming conventions :wink:), then so be it.
2010 is too soon for it to happen on PDA-sized devices, but I think it's a perfect time frame for the slightly larger handtop/palmtop OQO-like devices. Especially with Intel now placing top priority on reducing power consumption of all their processors, and AMD sure to follow.

[SteveHoward999]

But our persistent limitation (that is, the effect of size on interface) may be less distinctive in terms of Windows Vista and subsequent OSes, because Vista has abstracted the GUI. They've said "we'll present the programs to you in different ways depending on your graphics hardware". Not only that, but they've allowed the user to selectively zoom and scale program windows in Vista to different sizes.


Wow - I was not aware of this (not been keeping up to date on Vista! Call me a bad developer!!!). This is a great addition. There is every chance that screen manufacturers will give us SVGA or even XSVGA screens that fit into the current PPC form factor. With continued miniturisation and some modification of the button locations, a screen of 5 inch diagonal is entirely possible ... and then we could run Vista, and scale the displayed windows to suit our needs and eyesight.

At this stage, the screen itself need not be the limiting factor in this, but our eyesight will :puppydogeyes:


:-)

--

[Perry Reed]

Since when is choice ever a bad thing? I think it's great to have the choice between Windows Mobile and Vista. (I agree that Mobile isn't going away any time soon.)

I've been advocating the creation of a "PDA" shell for Windows for a long time. Something like the Media Center Edition, in which you have a different UI for the different use, a "PDA" version of the Vista UI could look a lot like Windows Mobile, but still be able to run all of the apps that run on Vista.

Not everyone will need that power (or be able to afford such a device) and so would want Windows Mobile instead. Of course, I would expect Windows Mobile to be superior in terms of battery life, instant-on, and possibly other areas as well.

I would also expect that the phone devices would continue to run on Windows Mobile and I would be surprised to see any sort of Windows Vista phone.

[SteveHoward999]

I would also expect that the phone devices would continue to run on Windows Mobile and I would be surprised to see any sort of Windows Vista phone.

Not sure I can agree. It seems that those of us who want separte phone/PDA devices are fast becoming the minority.

[Perry Reed]

I would also expect that the phone devices would continue to run on Windows Mobile and I would be surprised to see any sort of Windows Vista phone.

Not sure I can agree. It seems that those of us who want separte phone/PDA devices are fast becoming the minority.

Indeed you are, but I still would expect those combined devices to run Mobile instead of Vista.

Now I would not be surprised to see Vista devices with some sort of 3G data access embedded in them, but I see that as purely data, not a voice device (except, of course, VOIP).

[Duncan]

In time (not too long) I would expect 3G data to be built-in to all IT devices as readily as WiFi and Bluetooth are now.

[Possum Roadkill]

I would also expect that the phone devices would continue to run on Windows Mobile and I would be surprised to see any sort of Windows Vista phone.

Not sure I can agree. It seems that those of us who want separte phone/PDA devices are fast becoming the minority.

Indeed you are, but I still would expect those combined devices to run Mobile instead of Vista.

Now I would not be surprised to see Vista devices with some sort of 3G data access embedded in them, but I see that as purely data, not a voice device (except, of course, VOIP).

May I remind you of what you said in your first post? "Since when is choice ever a bad thing?"

Five years is a long time in "computer years." Right now Windows Mobile phones are about the most complex phones out and you can argue that there are more portable choices that have better battery time, but people do buy PPC phones.

Screen resolution isn't the whole story. Screen size will always be limited to stay within the form factor of the device, except when the device is perhaps connected to a larger monitor.

As for the previous post suggesting a button to toggle between two modes of operation, that doesn't really make any sense to me. The device should be able to tell what mode it should be in based on what it's connected to. It's time for us all to stop thinking like Windows programmers (especially the Windows programmers).

Yes, I'm looking forward to more complex and more powerful handhelds, but the important point here is that it shouldn't mean that they are more complex for the user to operate. It should in fact be the opposite.

For example, if you put voice recognition that doesn't require "training" into a device, it's more complex, but at the same time it's simpler to use. :wink: :wink:

[Nurhisham Hussein]

There is every chance that screen manufacturers will give us SVGA or even XSVGA screens that fit into the current PPC form factor. With continued miniturisation and some modification of the button locations, a screen of 5 inch diagonal is entirely possible ... and then we could run Vista, and scale the displayed windows to suit our needs and eyesight.

At this stage, the screen itself need not be the limiting factor in this, but our eyesight will :puppydogeyes:

:-)

--

Do you mean something like this? -

http://www.dynamism.com/u71/index.shtml

Not quite PDA size (you can't put it in your pocket for instance) but still very close to your wish list.

[Phoenix]

Do I want Windows Vista on my Pocket PC? NO!

I'm a geek through and through in the way that I love Pocket PC technology, convergence, etc., etc., but even with that said, these things can be complicated enough as it is. Their beauty is the ease in which things can be accomplished and the balance they maintain between sophistication and simplicity. I don't need the complications and headaches that a full blown OS like Windows XP or Vista has or will have, built into my handheld. No thanks.

An OS like Windows Mobile is for small screens. Vista doesn't belong on a handheld with a 2.8" - 4" screen.

I'm all for the extra power to run better software for a better visual and auditory experience, and a handheld browser that gives me a similar internet experience I'd have with my laptop, but apart from that, leave Vista for the bigger machines and leave WM for the handhelds.

[SteveHoward999]

Do you mean something like this? -

http://www.dynamism.com/u71/index.shtml

Not quite PDA size (you can't put it in your pocket for instance) but still very close to your wish list.


Sort of - but still too much of the machine has been committed to interface buttons and ... nothing. What I have in mind is something that gives all (or at least more) of the front face to screen. We could easily learn to use buttons arranged on the edges, or even underneath the device - who decided we always want to use our thumbs?


Put it another way - look at a typical PPC. Get out your tape measure and work out how much of the front space is given over to screen, and how much to either blank 'bezel' area or control buttons. I think you will find that for most, if not all, PDAs you will find that the screen takes up 50% or less of the front of the device. Even allowing for a certain amount of 'edge' for strength and aesthetics, I still think there is room to make the screens significantly larger without changing the basic form factor of the PDA.

[whydidnt]

Well, I'm posting this from my OQO right now, so that will give you a hint to my bias. The key thing missing from the OQO isn't the GUI interface, but the lack of mobile application support. I don't know if Vista improves upon this, but if it does, and Intel can help the experience, count me in as a supporter.

XP actually runs very well and is quite useable on the OQO's 800 x 480 screen. It's just battery life and lack of instant on isn't optimal today for a handheld experience. I bet thes obstacles will be overcome by a combination of hardware and software by 2010.

[Nurhisham Hussein]

Sort of - but still too much of the machine has been committed to interface buttons and ...

I do agree with you Sony could have better utilised the surface area especially considering the Vaio U has a touch screen, though I for one wouldn't want to lose something like the directional pad we have now - it's too useful. I also agree with whydidnt - the only reason why I haven't snapped this up (or any of its competitors) is the awful battery life compared my PDA. I would really love to have an OS in this kind of form factor running desktop class software, with decent battery life, touch screen and the kind of connectivity we have today. The hardware is not quite there yet, but its close, and if Intel is willing to put their effort into helping this develop, my wallet is waiting :D

[Jerry Raia]

Vista will probably be obsolete in 5 years. I have no doubt it or something like it will run on a PPC. What's the big deal here?

[pjerry220]

Hey if Windows Vista can be placed on a device that is truly PDA size then let's go fot it. I think the functionality would be tremendous.

[martin_ayton]

... lack of instant on isn't
That's it for me. When I press the button on my PPC I want it on. Now. I don't want to have to wait even 15 seconds while it boots up (and my top-end notebook currently takes 3+ minutes to boot). When a call comes in to my converged device, I want to be able to answer it now and not wait until the OS comes out of hibernation. For me, even modern 'phones take too long to turn on.

I used to have a Psion 3 and then a 5 and then a 5mx. I reckon I soft-reset those things maybe once in six months. I soft-reset my Xda2s at least once per day and that is enough. I want an OS that just sits there, unnoticed in the background, doing its thing, available instantly whenever I call on it. I just don't believe that Vista, or any of its successors, is likely to achieve that.

[Perry Reed]

I would also expect that the phone devices would continue to run on Windows Mobile and I would be surprised to see any sort of Windows Vista phone.

Not sure I can agree. It seems that those of us who want separte phone/PDA devices are fast becoming the minority.

Indeed you are, but I still would expect those combined devices to run Mobile instead of Vista.

Now I would not be surprised to see Vista devices with some sort of 3G data access embedded in them, but I see that as purely data, not a voice device (except, of course, VOIP).

May I remind you of what you said in your first post? "Since when is choice ever a bad thing?"

Hey, I've never said that they shouldn't release a Vista-based phone, just that they probably won't, at least not any time soon.

Five years is a long time in "computer years." Right now Windows Mobile phones are about the most complex phones out and you can argue that there are more portable choices that have better battery time, but people do buy PPC phones.

Indeed, and I'm looking to get one myself soon. I'm also in the market for a Tablet PC, but as cool as it might be, I just don't see myself using a Windows- (non-Mobile) based phone. I seriously doubt that Vista will solve the instant-on issues and some of the other mobile-related problems inherent in the full blown Windows.

Now I'm the first to admit, it'd be very cool if they did. But they won't any time soon.

[whydidnt]

... lack of instant on isn't
That's it for me. When I press the button on my PPC I want it on. Now. I don't want to have to wait even 15 seconds while it boots up (and my top-end notebook currently takes 3+ minutes to boot). When a call comes in to my converged device, I want to be able to answer it now and not wait until the OS comes out of hibernation. For me, even modern 'phones take too long to turn on.


To be fair, the OQO wakes to a usable state from standby in 3-5 seconds. Not an eternity. The screen doesn't come on instantly like my PPC, but my PPC always requires me to wait a second or so before it is usable as well, especially if bluetooth or WiFi is turned on. The bigger issue is really how the desktop apps are designed, they aren't designed with saving battery life in mind - so they are constantly hitting the hard drive. Now if we fast forward to join Intel's world of 2010. I would say there are several factors working in their favor:

1. There will be improvements in battery technology
2. We will have flash-memory based hard drives
3. Vista(or it's successor) will have a scalable UI

Intel has shown an keen interest in the mobile space already with the Pentium-M and XScale chips, it's good to see they are continuing to push forward.

[Steve Jordan]

The only point I can see to having Vista in my PPC is to allow me to toss my desktop, laptop, etc, use the PPC as a portable device carrying all my apps and data, then plug into a desktop dock that would allow me to run Vista from a full-sized monitor and interface. (We don't need no stickin' synchronization! HA HA HA HAA!)

It would still need to be as functionable and responsive as a PPC, though... I want the same instant access to my organizer-based functions, at least.

Maybe what's needed is an internal "toggle" that processes data through a Vista/PPC OS when mobile, and through Vista/Desktop when plugged into a dock.

If that can't be accomplished... they might as well stay separate.

[SteveHoward999]

None of the tools I use for work will run on PPC. If I could run full windows on a PDA-sized device that would make travelling for work a lot more lightweight :-) Leave the 20 pounds of laptop and accessories at home, and just take the PDA. Plug it into a keyboard, screen, mouse at any office workstation anywhere in the world.

But please, don't make me use a German keyboard again! :|

[Kirkaiya]

Hmm... well, if you would permit me to arbitrarily define an OS as a base of program functionality (APIs and DLLs, etc.) + an interface framework (desktop, windows, etc.) then it seems reasonable to suggest that Windows Mobile has, until this point, modified both to fit the realities of the handheld.

These realities, respectively, are
1. smaller, less powerful hardware "under the hood" (because of size and battery limitations) than a PC
2. smaller screen / different input devices than a PC

So naturally, a handheld OS must differ from a desktop OS in these two ways. But which of the above two limitations ought to persist? The second, of course - as long as you want it in your pocket, you can't have a mouse and a full sized keyboard and a 19" screen.

The first limitation dwindles as technology gets better - smaller hard drives, faster processors that consume less power, better battery capacity, etc. Theoretically, the computing POWER of a handheld should always be able to catch up to that which was once only available in a PC. We've already seen this as Windows Mobile introduces the .NET CF, versions of SQL and DirectX, etc. Ultimately, the base program functionality of the OS is whatever the hardware can handle, and Windows Mobile grows closer to the desktop in this respect, each release.

But our persistent limitation (that is, the effect of size on interface) may be less distinctive in terms of Windows Vista and subsequent OSes, because Vista has abstracted the GUI. They've said "we'll present the programs to you in different ways depending on your graphics hardware". Not only that, but they've allowed the user to selectively zoom and scale program windows in Vista to different sizes.
&lt;snip>
. what if the Mobile GUI was just another (smaller) way of presenting Vista to the user? What if apps with the same base capabilities (due to the same underlying APIs in the OS) could display one way on a PC monitor, but a different way on a handheld? Controls could change their look and behaviour to accomodate the stylus.

&lt;snip> My suspicion is that this is where MCE is going - it will be just another, different GUI on top of Vista, one specifically designed for low-resolution displays (televisions) and remote-control navigation. What if Windows Mobile ultimately becomes "Handheld Computer Edition", with an interface customized for stylus and small screens? Why not?

That is exactly what I would have written, had I gotten here first, and was less lazy! But that was my first reaction to reading the front-page post - Intel is right, in that what we think of as the "OS" is going further and further "under the hood". Hell, even now, a decent chunk of users rarely leave a single desktop application - their browser - doing their email with Yahoo Mail, or Outlook Web Access, doing their webbrowsing, and accessing corporate databases via web-apps.

In addition to what you bcries said about the seperation of GUI from underlying OS, I would add that more and more, the high-end processing in newer PCs is only required to render our increasingly complex GUIs - Windows Vista being exhibit "A", with the graphics hardware needed to do the translucent 3-D effects, etc. It just doesn't take that high of a CPU to do word processing, Excel spreadsheets, and play MP3s and chat on MSN... meaning that our handhelds might be functionally the same as the desktops, but with (as bcries pointed out) content presented in a form that fits the size.

Finally - more and more computation is being done by remote servers, as bandwidth becomes ubiquitious. I'm not pimping Sun's "sun rays", but with so much rendering being done by web-servers, and distant databases, where the actual "OS" resides might be transparent to the user anyway.

[surur]

Actually rendering has become more an d more local these days. Web pages have become more and more complex, requiring more and more horse power to make them work (e.g. java, javascript applications, DHTML, even flash is content rendered locally). Its actually this problem which argues for a grown up OS and gigahertz hardware, and this is also why the internet expereince is so poor on handheld devices (e.g. not being bale to access gmail very well).

A friend tried to install google earth yesterday, and was unable to because his two year old laptop did not have enough horsepower. This to me argues that handheld devices, with the constraints they face re battery power, will always be second class citizens, regardless of OS.

Surur

[fmcpherson]

Ironically, none of the issues in this thread relate to the processor, which is what the Intel guy is really talking about.

I think the two biggest issues for CPUs for any mobile device is power consumption and heat. The OS attempts to address this by not making the CPU work as hard, and controlling non CPU functions like the screen.

Intel's focus on tackling the problems from a CPU hardware perspective is good news for all mobile users. If Intel wants to use Vista as the target OS is fine, but that doesn't prevent Microsoft from enabling CE to run on that processor.

To really tackle power consumption the OS and the CPUs need to improve, so I am glad to see Intel focus on this area.

[krisbrown]

As a Sony U50 and I-mate Jam user, I can see everyday the huge gap between a portable desktop OS and a mobile windows powered device.

The simple fact is that XP is just bloatware, they get away with it because of the horsepower of desktop PC's, but the Jam can push apps TO GET AN ACTUAL REALTIME RESULT as fast as the U50.

All this with 10th of the resources.

Vista is looking to be XP's fatter brother and boosting handhelds power to use it is totally the wrong way to go about it, all we need is better apps for Windows Mobile.
PPC's can't keep up in the desktop world because the XP has long long left any notion of optimisation.

I use FTP/PAINTSHOP/BROWSER/3GP VID ENCODE for my website, the JAM can do it all except the vid encode (not hardware problem just no app out there) it does it as fast as the U50 without warming my hands or going flat in 2 hours, the problem is the apps on the Jam don't have a very good UI.
I opened ftp/browser/reader/media player/tomtom5/excel/word/notepad/solitaire and it ran like a dream, didn't even skip MP3 play and that's with 64mb ram and took an incoming call.
You'd need 1GB ram to do that on an XP/VISTA machine
:wink:
Don't even start me on protecting the U50 from viruses :roll:

My opinion is that destops need to get all Windows mobile , not the other way round.

[Steve Jordan]

My opinion is that destops need to get all Windows mobile , not the other way round.

That's a good point. If a tiny, anemic, battery powered bit like a PPC can instant-on and do its job, and take no more than 2-3 seconds to open any app, what the hell are we doing putting up with a plugged-in, power processor multi-gig ram and storage behemoth taking 2-5 minutes just to start up? There IS something wrong with this picture.

Desktops would be better served with embedded OSs, like PPCs: You may get fewer customization options, but it should get you superior performance, especially with basic apps and processes.

[beq]

Just wondering, has anyone in this thread (inevitably) mentioned the Linux OS, as in having the same OS running on desktops and PDAs? :)


P.S. I like Steve Jordan's sig, I guess we know of someone who'll be excited to see Serenity...

[beq]

It's interesting BTW to hear the news trickling out of IDF about Intel's next-gen notebook processors supporting even deeper sleep (http://news.com.com/Your+laptop+is+getting+very%2C+very+sleepy/2100-1041_3-5842351.html) state:

"The 'Enhanced Intel Deeper Sleep' technology, a feature of the company's new chips, lowers a processor's voltage below the Deeper Sleep state found in Intel's current family of mobile chips."

Yet in contrasting desktop news, they're now making home computer PSUs (power supplies) in the 1 kilowatt (http://www.hexus.net/content/static/enermax_galaxy.html) range!

[Steve Jordan]

Browncoats rule!

Sorry, back to topic...

You're right, there's no reason Linux can't be the OS for a desktop and PPC. For the dual-interface I mentioned earlier, Linux might be more scalable than Windows would ever be, and may not require 2 distinct OSs as I suspect Windows would.

[DualOSMan]

Very interesting dialogue re: Vista and Mobile Apps running on the same ultra portable device - sounds like "ultimate convergence" - instant-on, always on, always connected, etc. - and no dilution from the desktop experience, with a robust hard drive, full Vista, etc....phone, PDA, computer, media player....

There has got to be a "great name" lurking out there for such a device - anyone care to offer any suggestions? Dual-On?

[SteveHoward999]

There has got to be a "great name" lurking out there for such a device - anyone care to offer any suggestions? Dual-On?

Mine!


:D

[Steve Jordan]

Heck, I'd call it Split Pea Soup, as long as it actually worked.

[DualOSMan]

Actually, it could be reality by 4th quarter - Windows XP (or Tablet) on one processor, WinCE5.0/Windows Mobile on the other - instant-on - always on - zero lag between applications - and enormous battery conservation based on "only using Windows XP" when needed - perhaps a name like "DualPro" or the like - it will truly validate the "hand-top" computing category....

[Steve Jordan]

Yeah, but... by 4th quarter? We are talking about computer innovation, here. We are talking about Microsoft, here.

4th quarter 2008, maybe...