Windows Phone 7 Tablets a Possibility?

[Jason Dunn]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.pcworld.com/article/201826/windows_phone_7_tablet_still_possible.html?tk=hp_new' target='_blank'>http://www.pcworld.com/article/2018....html?tk=hp_new</a><br /><br /></div><p><em>"There is a lot of speculation about what the agreement announced last week between chip designer ARM and Microsoft actually means. Some pundits predict that it is a signal that Microsoft intends to deliver Windows or Windows Phone OS tablet and slate devices, while others foresee an overdue overhaul of the Xbox's architecture."</em></p><p>Ah, blogger speculation at its finest! Microsoft announces an agreement with ARM, and the speculation engine revs into overdrive. I think there are a couple of possibilities here, though I'm not sure I place much stock in the idea of this being for putting Windows Phone 7 on a tablet. I really want to believe that Microsoft has figured out that Windows 7 is a poor choice for a touch-based operating system, but they've said things to the contrary on several occasions. I think Windows Phone 7 would be great on a tablet based on what I've seen, but they'd need to re-design that home screen and menu system. It seems to work well on a small screen (boy, do I ever wish I had some hands-on time with such a device)&nbsp;but on a bigger tablet device,&nbsp;I'm not so sure. One thing IS for sure: if Microsoft and their OEM partners want to have any hope of competing with the iPad and Android-based devices, they're going to have to come up with a lightweight OS.</p>

[caywen]

I think there is a lot Microsoft can leverage to support tablets using a variant of WP7. Windows Phone 7 appears to be largely built on .NET and Silverlight, which is really an offshoot of WPF. With regard to Windows EC7, there's no reason a WP7-compatible tablet OS couldn't be built on that. Remember that WP7 apps are not native code, so presumably, they could even run on your desktop given the right software stack (which is something I wonder if MS is working on).

[Craig Horlacher]

I think it would be foolish for Microsoft to put any resources into tablets right now. They have so many things working against them (missing features, iPhone following, great Android device/carrier options, established app stores of iPhone and Android, etc) I think they need to put every mobile resource available into WinPhone 7 if they want any chance of it not turning out the way the Kin did. They're getting good reviews on the UI, they need to take that, put everything they have behind it, and run with it.

I do think WinPhone 7 could work fine on a tablet in the future and I agree with Jason that it would be a whole lot better than Windows 7, and I do really like Windows 7.

[Fritzly]

Putting WP7 on a Tablet would be the worst thing MS could do.
Yes the W7 UI is not the best choice for a Touch Tablet but..... WP7? Are you going to give up, oops sorry nowadays the wording is "it is unnecessary", Cut n Paste? What about Windows Explorer?
Again if we talk about a "SmartDisplay" it might work, I would not buy it but it could be enough for some people; but a Tablet PC is a PC, therefore an OS as WP7 as well as the one Apple use on iPad are inadequate to say the least.

[Jason Dunn]

...but a Tablet PC is a PC, therefore an OS as WP7 as well as the one Apple use on iPad are inadequate to say the least.

Look up Tablet PC in Wikipedia and you're likely going to find an obituary. The Tablet PC concept failed; it never achieved the mass market success that Bill Gates and Microsoft wanted. They were too big, too slow, too heavy, and too expensive. Your concept of a tablet/slate computer needing to be a full-featured OS is the same mentality that doomed this concept to failure.

Don't be like Steve Ballmer and laugh at the iPad the way he laughed at the iPhone; the iPad is selling at a rate that any Microsoft product would LOVE to sell at. Why? Because it might not be a full-featured computer, but that's not what all people need. "Good enough" is all that matters; look at MP3s, netbooks, etc.

[Fritzly]

Look up Tablet PC in Wikipedia and you're likely going to find an obituary. The Tablet PC concept failed; it never achieved the mass market success that Bill Gates and Microsoft wanted. They were too big, too slow, too heavy, and too expensive. Your concept of a tablet/slate computer needing to be a full-featured OS is the same mentality that doomed this concept to failure.

Don't be like Steve Ballmer and laugh at the iPad the way he laughed at the iPhone; the iPad is selling at a rate that any Microsoft product would LOVE to sell at. Why? Because it might not be a full-featured computer, but that's not what all people need. "Good enough" is all that matters; look at MP3s, netbooks, etc.

Actually the concept behind the ipad was invented by MS when Bill Gates was still in charge and Ballmer was doing what he does best: act as an used car sales person dancing the monkey dance. it was called 'Smart display", beta code name "Mira"; it was a concept way ahead of its time and the hardware available at the time was not there both in terms of performances and costs; you can check about it in Wikipedia as well.
Undoubtedly the original Tablet concept was plagued by slow processors, an inadequate OS: XP Tablet and overpriced; nowasdays I am still waiting for someone to explain why I should buy a regular laptop instead of a "Convertible tablet PC" and miss all the advantages of the latter.

The great opportunity for these "Smart display" either from Apple or MS is still the ones that was sought years ago: control a domotized house; sadly as far as I know I don see any app to do so.... and I have had domotized apartments since 1990...... and my interacting with handwriting on electronic devices, or sort of them, is even more ancient: Casio PF 8000 in 1981.

[Jason Dunn]

Actually the concept behind the ipad was invented by MS when Bill Gates was still in charge and Ballmer was doing what he does best: act as an used car sales person dancing the monkey dance. it was called 'Smart display", beta code name "Mira"; it was a concept way ahead of its time and the hardware available at the time was not there both in terms of performances and costs; you can check about it in Wikipedia as well.

It seems we view history quite differently. :) I do indeed remember Mira, but Mira was nothing like the iPad or any tablet device out today. Mira had ZERO functionality on it's own; it was ONLY a remote desktop client that connected you back to your PC. It had no apps by itself. It did NOTHING unless you were connected via RDP to your desktop over WiFi. I don't understand how you can think that's even remotely similar to any device today with it's own operating system and applications (let alone 3G access); completely stand-alone computing devices have nothing in common with Mira except, perhaps, the slab form-factor.

Undoubtedly the original Tablet concept was plagued by slow processors, an inadequate OS: XP Tablet and overpriced; nowasdays I am still waiting for someone to explain why I should buy a regular laptop instead of a "Convertible tablet PC" and miss all the advantages of the latter.

How about size, weight, and cost? I just reviewed the HP tm2, and the model I was sent has the same CPU as my Dell Vostro V13, so it's a reasonable comparison. The V13 is less expensive (though to be fair you do get more RAM and a bigger hard drive with the tm2, and better battery life), it's much thinner, much lighter, has a bigger screen, and is generally much more usable day to day than the tm2. If you have a real business/personal need for a touch screen device (say, you're an artist, etc.) then that need trumps all the down-sides. But for the average person, the touch screen is a waste. The market has spoken: how many laptops out there have touch screens and pens? Not many. Most people don't want the compromises they bring along with them. You are definitely in the minority.

[Fritzly]

It seems we view history quite differently. :) I do indeed remember Mira, but Mira was nothing like the iPad or any tablet device out today. Mira had ZERO functionality on it's own; it was ONLY a remote desktop client that connected you back to your PC. It had no apps by itself. It did NOTHING unless you were connected via RDP to your desktop over WiFi. I don't understand how you can think that's even remotely similar to any device today with it's own operating system and applications (let alone 3G access); completely stand-alone computing devices have nothing in common with Mira except, perhaps, the slab form-factor.



How about size, weight, and cost? I just reviewed the HP tm2, and the model I was sent has the same CPU as my Dell Vostro V13, so it's a reasonable comparison. The V13 is less expensive (though to be fair you do get more RAM and a bigger hard drive with the tm2, and better battery life), it's much thinner, much lighter, has a bigger screen, and is generally much more usable day to day than the tm2. If you have a real business/personal need for a touch screen device (say, you're an artist, etc.) then that need trumps all the down-sides. But for the average person, the touch screen is a waste. The market has spoken: how many laptops out there have touch screens and pens? Not many. Most people don't want the compromises they bring along with them. You are definitely in the minority.

Yes Mira, ten years ago, did not have the capabilities of nowadays "Slate" devices as well as cellular phones did not have either. The point is thta the concept to have a device to carry around, again at the time limited to the WiFi range inside the house, was the same.

As for the "Tablet" format its biggest asset is the hand writing and sketching capabilities, things that otherwise you would have to do on a notepad. I can take handwritten notes, email them, translate them in block letters etc. etc.; good luck doing it with an iPad and future clones. Touchscreen is a nice plus but not the reason to buy a "Tablet". As for brand I would rather prefer a Lenovo or a Toshiba than a Dell or HP. Finally about being in a minority..... well, it does not bother me at all, actually I enjoy being ahead of time; I was almost an alien when I was using the Casio in 1982...... times change. :-)

[Jason Dunn]

Yes Mira, ten years ago, did not have the capabilities of nowadays "Slate" devices as well as cellular phones did not. The point is thta the concept to have a device to carry around, again at the time limited to home WiFi range inside the house, was the same.

You completely missed what I was saying. Mira was an extension of a desktop computer, nothing more, nothing less. It was running Windows CE; they could have put the Pocket PC-type apps on it, but they didn't. They didn't want it to be a stand-alone device. Modern-day devices such as the iPad, the Dell Streak, and Archos Tablets are stand-alone computers with apps, data, etc. By your logic a tire and a donut are the same because they're both round. :D

[Fritzly]

You completely missed what I was saying. Mira was an extension of a desktop computer, nothing more, nothing less. It was running Windows CE; they could have put the Pocket PC-type apps on it, but they didn't. They didn't want it to be a stand-alone device. Modern-day devices such as the iPad, the Dell Streak, and Archos Tablets are stand-alone computers with apps, data, etc. By your logic a tire and a donut are the same because they're both round. :D

Well while I cannot get into many details I can reassure you that the future plans and the vision for Mira were very different and broader.
Probably ten years from now you guys will look at what is the state of the art devices now and laugh about them. Like my 8 years old daughter laugh when I search information on a book instead of checking internet........ :-)

[Perry Reed]

The biggest problem I see is that Microsoft's current plans for tablet/slate devices is a disaster. At the moment, they are not planning on pushing Windows 7 much and won't allow Windows Phone 7 at all. Instead, they're trying to sell device makers on Windows Embedded Compact Edition (aka Windows CE) on to which the vendor would have to put their own UI, develop their own application infrastructure, etc. So, no Metro UI, no Windows 7 UI, not unless the vendor can recreate it and even then, the apps won't be compatible with Win7 or WP7.

Not good. And it hurts my brain to try to understand how Microsoft could think for a moment that this is a winning strategy.

The Metro UI on WP7 -- and also in Win7 via the Windows Media Center -- is a great fit for a slate device. Were I running Microsoft, I would leverage it, dividing the market into two segments.

The first group, who require lower powered devices, would get a slate running a version of WP7 optimized for the slate screen. Let's call this version "Standard." You'd get the Metro UI, compatibility with WP7 apps, in a light-weight, long battery life device, something fairly comparable to iPad. I'd probably through in some slick Windows Remote Desktop functionality to allow it to run Windows apps remotely, giving it a leg up on iPad. I'd also do touch+pen as another competitive advantage.

The second group would be the power users. For these folks, I'd offer the "Pro" version, which would actually be built on Windows 7 (not Windows Phone), but with a very similar Metro UI running on top of it. Windows app makers could leverage the new UI for their apps, but it would also be capable of running regular old Windows applications. I would also add a compatibility layer for Windows Phone applications so that it could run them as well. It would also do touch+pen, like the "Standard" device. It would have a faster processor, more memory, but would likely be thicker with less battery life. Probably more expensive, too.

There would possibly be some confusion in the marketplace between the "Standard" and "Pro" slates, but with a good marketing campaign, this could be overcome. The key difference would be that the "Standard" slates couldn't run Windows apps natively (though they could via Remote Desktop), but would be thinner, lighter, cheaper, and run longer.

The Metro UI running on the "Pro" version would likely follow to other Windows devices; laptops and desktops, where it might eventually be run as often as the standard UI we have now, especially as more apps are written to use it.

Anyway, that's my idea. Feel free to shoot holes in it. :)

[Jason Dunn]

Well Perry, I think any approach is better than what Microsoft currently has now when it comes to slates/tablets. :rolleyes: