Slightly ahead of schedule, Microsoft this week released a new public or technical preview of Windows 10. This is supposedly a better, more reliable version of the OS beta that has already been available, so I jumped at the chance to see what Microsoft hopes will push the bad memories of Windows 8 to the distant past.

Except that Microsoft still won’t give up on the user interface formerly known as Metro. Once something gets under their skin at Microsoft, it’s really hard to let it go. Quite often, they just change the name, which is how MSN became Live Search which became Bing. I won’t get into the various names for Windows Phone, but it almost seems that changing identities, with a few feature refinements, is sometimes their only solution for failed products.

These days, what used to be called Windows Phone is now just Windows, same as the desktop operating system. Indeed, the code base is shared too, which creates the curious situation of a desktop app possibly working on a mobile phone or a tablet. But if the app is universal, a term being bandied about by the media, doesn’t that mean that mobile apps will be clogged with useless code? How does that work on your Lumia smartphone where space is at a premium?

Continue Reading…

I’ve got good news for anyone who dumped money on Windows 8, or is still using Windows 7. If you upgrade to Windows 10 the first year of its release, it’s going to be free. Yes, free. No subscriptions, no limited features. Free. You might assume Microsoft’s copying machines went after Apple’s playbook with OS X.

But one year? Yes, that means, I suppose, that after the year has expired, you’ll be forced to pay something to upgrade, although it doesn’t appear as if the prices have been released. But Microsoft is going to be in a curious position to charge for something that tens of millions of Windows users will regard as free.

There are other questions too, which is whether a Windows user will just be able to run an installer and upgrade to Windows 10, or whether they will have to engage in the usual legerdemain to upgrade from one OS to another. And what about all those people using Windows XP? Microsoft has been begging them to upgrade, so why should they be excluded, or will the upgrade process present too many hassles?

Regardless, Windows 10 does seem to be a fairly decent advance from the Windows 8.0/8.1 debacle. There will be a proper Start menu, although it’ll use the interface formerly known as Metro. Instead of the dumb — and difficult to reach — Charms menu you have PC Settings. At least someone at Microsoft had a modicum of sense to address some of the stupid decisions that infused Windows 8.

But that doesn’t mean all the decisions made sense. So there will be a single code base that evidently applies to both the desktop and mobile versions. I suppose simplicity makes sense, but I wonder about the apps that are developed. Will they still be dedicated to one platform? Will they be fat apps, meaning they will have extra megabytes of code that do nothing but clutter up a Lumia smartphone? What worries me just as much is why all the journalists fawning over Microsoft’s new OS strategy aren’t asking these questions.

There will also be a single app store, but again I wouldn’t presume to believe one app will serve both, and maybe that’ll be a simpler approach to those who continue to believe in the failed Windows everywhere strategy. But, if the app store’s lineup gets very large, wouldn’t that just create clutter? Or will Microsoft simply have a separate division for desktop and mobile platforms? But if they do that, wouldn’t it still be easier to just have separate stores?

A lot of questions will, of course, be answered as Windows 10 develops. A new public preview is due in days, and you can bet I’ll be installing it to see how things have changed. All the features won’t be there at the start, however. They will be rolled out gradually according to Microsoft. But that raises the specter of Windows Vista, where key features were promised but never appeared. With Microsoft’s claim that some features may not appear till summer, before Windows 10 is released to manufacturing — the equivalent of posting a Gold Master on OS X — there may not be enough time for proper testing. Releasing tentpole features shortly before an OS is done is bad form, but you wonder if this is just another example of Microsoft vaporware.

I also wonder about the economic model of offering a free OS. With Apple, you pay for the hardware, so it’s not a serious issue. That’s why OS X became free since it didn’t produce a substantial income for the company. But Microsoft is, despite having a mobile phone division, tablets and gaming consoles, largely a software and services company. If the key income-generator is free, where’s the revenue?

Well, clearly Windows 10 won’t be free to OEMs who bundle the OS with their new PCs. Well, except for those with small screens and cheap prices. So one expects Microsoft will still derive a decent income from Windows 10 even if end users don’t have to pay for it when upgrading existing PCs.

As to those features, present or promised, few stand out. Action Center, for example, is just Microsoft’s answer to Notification Center. The Cortana virtual assistant, Microsoft’s alternative to Siri, might seem appropriate for a smartphone or tablet, but I hardly think PC users in an office are going to be tolerated barking commands into their computers. I gather you’ll be able to turn it off, and just type commands into a search field similar to Apple’s Spotlight. All right, that’s better.

The one promised app that seems interesting is a universal messaging app. Now Apple’s Messages does support both SMS and iMessage services, along with AIM, Google, Face-book and so on. But even though the app and the interface are the same, the sessions are separate. Microsoft is promising you’ll be able to hold a single conversation across multiple services, such as SMS and Skype. That remains to be seen.

In any case, Microsoft is to be commended for attempting new things. If it succeeds, more power to them. Apple deserves worthy competitors and it would inspire both companies to try harder to build the perfect OS. If Windows 10 fulfills its promise, and performs in a fast and stable fashion, things can only get better for PC users.

Next week, the truth will be out there about how well Apple did during the holiday quarter. Already there’s plenty of speculation, supposedly based on independent sales surveys, that iPhone sales were off the charts. Based on preliminary estimates from IDC and Gartner, both notorious for undercounting Mac sales, Apple did pretty well moving Macs.

But what about the iPad?

That’s a huge question mark, and the estimates indicate a drop, perhaps a substantial drop. IDC claims there’s been a “massive deceleration” in tablet sales around the world. I’ll get to the possible reasons in a moment, but Fortune magazine reports that iPad sales estimates range from 16.3 million to 25 million. Compared to last year’s sales of 26 million, the average is 21.5 million. That’s a loss of 4.5 million or 16.9%. But even the most optimistic projection indicates a slight loss.

Obviously the final figures will come from Apple, along with an explanation why iPad sales are flat or declining, assuming that’s what really happened. While analyst estimates are all over the place, not all use crystal balls or Ouija boards or pull answers from a dark place. So some of these estimates may be close to the mark based on surveys, informal and otherwise, of dealers, distributors and so on and so forth.

Clearly all the excitement for Apple was centered on the iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus. With unexpectedly high sales in Asia and elsewhere, Apple is going to have a winning quarter regardless of how the iPad fares. In fact, I haven’t heard much about iPads of late, so maybe the product is just accepted, or has lost some of its luster. But it’s not the lack of apps or a compelling product. Clearly the iPad Air 2 is a surprisingly substantial upgrade compared to last year, and anyone who is considering a tablet need go no further. There are just no interesting ideas from Android and other platforms, other than reports Samsung and other companies are doing even worse.

But the question arises as to what Apple might do to make the iPad a more compelling product. Has it reached its potential for consumers yet? What about the enterprise? With Apple working with IBM to market mobile gear to businesses, it may well be that lots of iPads will be sold anyway. If not last quarter, certainly during 2015.

So can Apple do something that’ll make businesses lap them up? I mean they are used by airline pilots, point-of-sale setups, and for some luxury cars as a way to deliver those huge owner manuals in a friendly fashion. But when it comes to conventional productivity functions, such as word processing, the iPad tends to be clumsy. Certainly Office for iPad is well done. Microsoft hasn’t even delivered a similar solution for the Windows mobile market yet. But basic editing chores are difficult.

While I realize some of you have become quite fast typing on glass, there are those external keyboards. I’ve tried one or two, but they tend to be a little on the clunky side compared to just using a note-book, such as a MacBook Air. But they do work in a pinch, and thus it’s possible to write and edit lots of text on an iPad.

But there is still a key feature that is lacking, and it makes document creation of any sort extremely awkward. It’s all about multitasking. Even though Apple has done clever things to enable various types of multitasking on iPhones and iPads without consuming too many resources, what about the ability to run open more than a single document window on the same screen? You could do that in the 1980s on Macs with even smaller displays, so what am I missing?

Considering such features have appeared on the Android platform means that Apple is running behind the curve here, particularly for anyone interested in real productivity, and not just an occasional editing chore confined to a single document or application.

I realize there have been rumors that side-by-side multitasking was supposed to be introduced in iOS 8, likely for the iPad, but it never came to be. I wouldn’t presume to guess why, other than not being able to optimize the feature for good performance, or maybe the roadmap calls for a later introduction in iOS 8 or perhaps it’s being held for iOS 9

Perhaps Apple has declared a standard-sized iPad ineligible for such multitasking. I can understand an iPad mini with a much smaller display, but not the 9.7-inch model. Or perhaps Apple is considering potential tentpole features for a possible larger iPad, an iPad Pro with an over 12-inch display. But even if such a beast arrives, it wouldn’t make sense for Apple to restrict such a feature to a product that probably won’t get near as many sales as the smaller iPads.

Now I do not pretend to understand Apple’s marketing plans for the iPad going forward. There may be things in the works we can only dream of. Sure, declining iPad sales are a bummer for them, although that’s more than covered by sales of the iPhone and Macs. Perhaps the Apple Watch will count for a reasonable amount of revenue, particularly if customers are into gold smartwatches.

I may not be an avid iPad user, but I see unfulfilled possibilities, and letting me put multiple documents and apps side-by-side would be a great deal maker. How about it Apple?

As you might recall, Steve Jobs famously decried the use of a stylus on a mobile device. After all, people, assuming all digits are intact, have ten styluses already, so why would we need more? But that hasn’t stopped Apple from receiving patents on stylus-related technology that some call “iPen.” Regardless, it’s well known that Jobs would often deny the value of a technology and later introduce Apple’s version.

The go-away was simply that other companies did it the wrong way, and Apple did it the right way.

In light of those stylus patents, however, there are new rumors that an overgrown iPad, the supposed iPad Pro, will come equipped with one of those things. Or perhaps Apple will sell you one as an option. Options are good, since they add an extra income stream. But does that mean that Tim Cook’s Apple is doing the things that Jobs would have rejected? Is that what is at stake here?

So what about the iPad mini that was released despite Jobs’ statement that you’d have to sandpaper your hands to use a small tablet? What about the iPhone 6, which doesn’t quite fit as a one-handed device, and don’t remind me about the iPhone 6 Plus. Regardless of what you think of the former, the iPhone phablet is positively huge, but not as huge as those with six-inch displays.

Such decisions are meant to confirm the claim that Cook is systematically undoing some of the best decisions of his predecessor. What would Steve have done?

Well, Jobs did say in his final years that he didn’t want his replacement to ask such a foolish question. He recalled how the Walt Disney Company was stuck in a rut wondering what Walt Disney would have done in the years after his death. Only when they learned how to move on and find their own direction did the company regain its momentum.

But does this mean that an iPad Pro is in our future? What about that rumored 12-inch MacBook Air with Retina display and a single peripheral port? Why choose 12 inches, when there are perfectly respectable and quite popular 11-inch and 13-inch MacBook Airs already? Why not just add Retina display alternatives? Does any of this even make sense?

To be fair, rumors of this sort come from the supply chain, and it’s very likely Apple is experimenting with all sorts of different form factors, but most will never see the light of day. We’re still waiting for that alleged Apple connected TV set that never connected. And what about the next Apple TV?

One rumor that has been resurrected of late is the possibility of an ARM-based Mac. On the surface, it seems to have a sense of logic behind it. Apple has made those A-series processors extremely powerful, capable of amazing feats for mobile devices. Isn’t it possible to scale up one of these chips to compete with Intel, at least in theory? Some day, Apple’s chip design team might be able to better Intel, but don’t bet on it. You see, despite Intel’s delays in getting the new Broadwell chips ready — they are months late, thus hurting the prospects for upgraded Macs — they still performed miracles with chip designs. Benchmark any Mac at any price point and you’ll see. But it is true that Intel’s Atom chips, designed to compete with ARM, have come up way short.

Now as some of you know, our sites are, as an experiment, now hosted on a Mac mini with an Intel quad-core i7, and I haven’t heard any complaints about degraded performance compared to the Xeon server we had been using previously.

Back on point, jumping to an ARM architecture, while theoretically possible, doesn’t quite fit the logic test for Apple. As Daniel Eran Dilger of AppleInsider demonstrated recently, the 20 million-odd Macs Apple sells each year may seem a lot compared to previous years, but those numbers don’t really justify the investment in a high-energy ARM processor for desktop computing use.

There are other complications.

One of the big advantages of moving to Intel is that Apple could take advantage of industry-standard commodity parts, making it possible to reduce the price of Macs while increasing the performance ratio. Running Windows at near-native speeds is a huge advantage, since it makes it much easier for someone to migrate to a Mac while keeping their hands in the Windows environment. Just install Windows under Apple’s Boot Camp or in a virtual machine run by the likes of Parallels Desktop or VMware Fusion.

Some people need to use both platforms on a daily basis, so having one computer to perform the tasks of two is a huge advantage. Aside from games, a Mac often runs Windows better than many native Windows boxes.

That goes away when Apple moves to ARM. And what about tens of thousands of apps compiled and optimized for Intel? Sure, Apple has done processor switches twice already with the original Motorola and later PowerPC processors. An emulation environment, especially if it’s hardware based, might eliminate most of the speed hit in running legacy Intel software until app developers get with the program.

But where’s the advantage? Why go through this pain? So Apple could save some money buying chips? Is that worth would would be substantial R&D costs to make it happen? Apple moved to Intel because IBM and Motorola had given up on developing the PowerPC chip for personal computers; they had gone to embedded designs, such as autos, since there was more business to be had.

In other words, the PowerPC roadmap hit a roadblock, so Apple went with the only viable alternative, and that’s Intel, although AMD, which makes compatible chips, could be used if some compelling processor design makes it more attractive. But if Intel’s future processor development really comes up short, and AMD can’t fill the gap, I’m sure Apple could reconsider. But I don’t see that happening in the near future, despite the rumors and wishful thinking. It’s just another wacky Apple theory.