
Daring Fireball: The Case for Going Metro-Only on ARM - amatheus
http://daringfireball.net/2011/09/the_case_for_going_metro_only
======
roadnottaken
After running Windows 8 on my laptop for a while, I'm struck by how poorly-
suited Metro is to a traditional (mouse/keyboard) computing experience. My
sense is that traditional PCs should boot to the traditional Windows desktop
and tablets should only have Metro. It would be seen as a nice benefit that
traditional x86 computers can ALSO run Metro apps but I don't think anyone
will lament the fact that you can't run Excel on your tablet...

~~~
jerf
"It would be seen as a nice benefit that traditional x86 computers can ALSO
run Metro apps but I don't think anyone will lament the fact that you can't
run Excel on your tablet..."

Counterpoint: The next IMHO-blindingly-obvious step in computer evolution is
that your tablet/cell phone becomes your desktop when plugged into a probably-
USB-based dock that adds a keyboard, mouse, and real desktop monitor (or
more). Tablets that can't run real OSes days are numbered.

Having a well-delineated tablet UI layer is good. We've got over a decade of
proof that just smashing a conventional desktop onto a tablet doesn't work.
But I would not want to massively commit to the idea that tablets will never
run Excel. They will... just not in their touch-only mode.

It's all about how committed you end up to it, though; in the short term, if
only Metro is on the tablet of 2012, that's OK, as long as you can pivot,
potentially as soon as early 2013. (Prototypes of this ought to exist
somewhere now if MS is going to pull this off.) But if you've written this
requirement deep into the tech stack, you're in trouble.

~~~
dctoedt
_The next IMHO-blindingly-obvious step in computer evolution is that your
tablet/cell phone becomes your desktop when plugged into a probably-USB-based
dock that adds a keyboard, mouse, and real desktop monitor (or more)._

Thanks for publicly mentioning that (seriously): Your mention in itself is now
"prior art" for pretty much anyone who might later try to patent the idea.
(IIRC, Arthur C. Clarke described something much like that in one of his
_Rama_ novels back in the late 1970s or early 1980s.)

~~~
orangecat
It's been mentioned many times before, including by ESR in 2008:
<http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=614>. Not that I expect that to stop the patent
office from handing a lawsuit factory to the next Lodsys.

------
ary
I respectfully submit that each and every DF post isn't worth front-page
attention on HN.

<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3019147>

Edit: The link is a request for PG to blacklist DF. I honestly don't think the
submissions add to the overall quality of HN.

~~~
chollida1
Note: the link above is dead.

I'm not sure there is much point in debating whether or not DF belongs on the
front page.

The voting system and community determine that.

~~~
ary
I sent it to directly to pg, so he must have killed it. I suppose you're right
though.

------
crenshaw
A couple of points:

* People forget that Microsoft is used to selling Windows that runs on multiple architectures. They had(have?) Itanium, DEC Alpha, PowerPC, and MIPS in the past. Of course those were targeted at professionals, not consumers.

* I don't think MS really cares that much about x86 native apps running on ARM. They care about desktop managed apps running on ARM. Why? LOB apps. LOB apps are managed and they want to support ARM tablet users having access to these.

* Related to the above point, there are actually few native x86 apps that really matter. Look at the Amazon top 20 selling SW list. It's basically: Office, Windows, Intuit, Adobe, and antivirus. Microsoft ships half of the top 20. They'll be shipping antivirus, so effectively shipping 2/3rd of the top 20. The only apps in the top 20 they'd need to get are Intuit (Quickbooks/Quicken/TurboTax) and Adobe Premiere XYZ. MS can probably have at launch 95% of the cycles consumed by native x86 apps on ARM.

With that said, for once, I do think Gruber is generally correct.

~~~
gvb
WRT your first point, Microsoft _used to sell_ Windows on multiple
architectures. They abandoned Alpha, PowerPC, and MIPS in 1999.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT#Supported_platforms> A big part of
the problem was that software vendors did not make non-x86 versions of their
software and subsequently users were confused and disappointed that the
software that they wanted to run on their (e.g. Alpha) computer either
wouldn't run or had to run in an emulator and thus ran slower than on an x86
machine.

Microsoft supports two architectures currently: x86/Itanium and ARM with
WinCE/WinMobile/WP7. There is no _real_ synergy between the two currently,
e.g. the "Office" apps that run on ARM are totally different beasts than what
run on x86. The primary crossover is "mindshare" - i.e. users recognize the
names.

~~~
jevinskie
They still ship Windows CE on multiple architectures.

~~~
gecko
And Xbox runs the Windows kernel and .NET on PowerPC.

------
protomyth
I think I get the whole reasoning but I really disagree with one of
Microsoft's decisions on this.

* ARM is Metro only

* x86 is old + Metro

* All Metro apps must be purchased in the App Store

I understand the last one from an ARM perspective. It stops any confusion if
the app with run on ARM. If I can see it in the App Store then it will run. I
just think it is a bit of overreaction / greedy to require all x86 Metro apps
to be in the App Store. It just seems like a really bad way to mess up
adoption of Metro on x86.

~~~
MatthewPhillips
Not trying to be nitpicky, but capitalized App Store is the Apple owned store.
It is app store if meant generally or Windows Marketplace if speaking of the
Microsoft branded store.

------
Tloewald
This whole "not confusing people" thing seems like a nifty idea, but I think
we're talking about a different company.

Is there any reason to believe that Microsoft doesn't want to confuse
consumers or that not confusing consumers is in any way a winning strategy for
them? Yes, I'm being sarcastic, but it seems to me that not confusing
customers is Apple's schtick. Microsoft does very well with a different
business model that historically has included:

WinCE WinMobile PocketPC etc. even Windows Phone 7 has gone through several
name variations.

Windows Vista and 7 both offered a bewildering range of SKUs.

Version naming and numbering schemes that make no sense to anybody. (Although
Final Cut Pro X is an admirable attempt by Apple to compete here, Pro having
been Apple's traditional replacement for 3.)

And don't forget that Microsoft's hardware partners are all past masters of
incomprehensible product lines.

And can anyone figure out which Intel CPU is which without using google today?

------
joebadmo
_I think the easiest way to minimize confusion would be to market ARM-based
Windows machines as “Metro only”. Intel gets classic Windows and Metro apps,
ARM gets Metro._

I don't think this would be that much less confusing for lay users. I would
imagine MS will rely on pushing 3rd party software through their App Store,
and only exposing compatible software. I imagine this will work better to
minimize end-user confusion and to enforce developers doing real ports of
their applications instead of just recompiling.

------
barista
By not allowing legacy apps on ARM microsoft would not have any leverage in
the tablet space. If I have a choice between iOS and Windows ARM where the
former had a ton of apps and latter doesn't have many, then why would ?I
choose windows? It's the same Windows Phone story again. No matter how
superior it is to the iPhone, it will lose out for the lack of apps.

Microsoft knows this. I won't be surprised if they have more nd more support
for legacy API and applications on ARM over time.

~~~
illumin8
I believe Microsoft has already stated that only Metro apps will run on ARM
(no legacy x86 apps):

[http://www.infoworld.com/t/microsoft-windows/will-
windows-8-...](http://www.infoworld.com/t/microsoft-windows/will-
windows-8-run-x86-apps-arm-tablets-or-not-173498)

Steve Sinofsky: "We've been very clear since the very first CES demos and
forward that the ARM product won't run any X86 applications. We've done a
bunch of work to enable that -- enable a great experience there, particularly
around devices and device drivers... [W]hat we announced yesterday for the
first time was that when you write a Metro style application, all the tools
are there to enable you in any of the languages that we support to
automatically support ARM or X86. I think that's the key part of everything
that we'll run."

Why does the argument that by some magic you'll be able to purchase an iPad-
like Windows 8 tablet and run full blown desktop Microsoft Office keep
cropping up?

There will probably be a version of MS Works that is written for the Metro
touch interface that will work on ARM, but the performance of an x86 desktop
application running in an emulator on ARM would be atrocious and everybody
knows it.

~~~
wmf
There are _three_ types of Win8 apps: Metro, Win32/ARM, and Win32/x86. The
question is whether Win32/ARM apps will be allowed.

 _Why does the argument that by some magic you'll be able to purchase an iPad-
like Windows 8 tablet and run full blown desktop Microsoft Office keep
cropping up?_

Because people like Office, MS makes a lot of money from Office, and MS
actually showed full-blown desktop Office running on ARM a few months ago.

------
kprobst
For someone who tends to be dismissive of Microsoft, Gruber sure seems to be
writing about them a lot lately.

~~~
gks
I'd say he may be pretty dismissive of Microsoft in general, but I think
nearly anyone that has used or seen Windows Phone 7 is thinking it's a great
thing.

But that actually comes down to the same thing. The reasons Gruber likes WP7
is because it cut the cord with all previous versions. It's a fresh start.
Which Gruber feels was needed. I actually agree with him on this point.

Now, where the problem comes with regard to Windows 8 is simply that there is
no cutting the cord with past versions. It still has all that legacy support
in it and keeps getting more convuluted. Even more now that there is support
for two different processor families.

Windows 8 would be a great chance to slice away some of the old legacy crap.

This is simply an example of where Apple has really excelled when they've been
in a similar situation. Not that the x86/ARM thing is exactly the same.
Apple's was a transition, while Microsofts is in Addition to. But Apple
provided tools to make the user experience seamless while Microsoft is making
it more difficult for average users to understand.

------
threadvote
Today we are going to have a civilized discussion of a Gruber article on HN.

For those that want to discuss the article, comment elsewhere!

For those that want to attack or defend Gruber, just upvote the appropriate
account below.

(If you want to see who is winning, click the appropriate account name. Both
accounts started with 1 karma and no other comments or submissions.)

