Source: http://winsupersite.com/windows-8/what-blue-leak-tells-us-about-microsoft-s-strategy“Blue” is moving in exactly the direction many had predicted by further removing the need to ever use the legacy Windows desktop. Tons of Control Panel functionality has moved from the desktop into Metro, and not just into PC Settings, but also in-place, through the Settings pane, where it makes the most sense. (For example, you can access Start screen settings directly from the Start screen.) Also smart. That latter bit is going to cause some kicking and screaming. But it’s important to remember where folks like us sit in the scheme of things. I’ve called recently for a more desktop-oriented version of Windows, perhaps, cough, it could be called Windows NT, that can sit alongside mainstream Windows versions and dispense with the touch silliness on traditional PCs. But it’s unclear what the size of this market is compared to the eventual market for touch-based computing devices. The bet that Microsoft made with Windows 8—and continues to make even more decidedly in Blue—is that this latter market is the future of computing. It is clearly focusing its attention there. At least in this leaked build."
Exactly! I share these very sentiments! Which is also why I consider the Surface RT to be a revolutionary device. Aside from the fact that I don't need the extended capabilities of the Surface Pro, this and the battery life are the main reasons why I chose the Surface RT.I agree that Microsoft is moving away for the legacy desktop and while many people will complain along the way, they will learn new ways and eventually forget the old. Just like has happened time and time again when the user interface has changed. There really was never a change to the user interface that didn't receive the typical 'sky is falling' responses and it all works out in the end. It just takes time to build in the functionality of the legacy desktop into a completely new interface, but there are so many advantages once it's there. That to me is the most exciting part of RT. I see RT as closer to the goal, with the Pro being the stop gap meant to maintain the legacy lifeline.
Probably what is you say is true. But this is precisely where I have the problem. Ideally, a Windows OS should be smart - smart in the sense that it should be able to configure itself to the kind of display being used. This is nothing esoteric and has been discussed "n" number of times here and elsewhere. A Windows OS optimized ONLY for touch is problematic in the sense that not everyone is going to be using a touch enabled device. For example, recently, I was thinking about an Windows 8 AIO device which would function as the main desktop for me. But I would not like a touch interface to use it. In fact, if anything, it is bloody inconvenient to use it as a touch-enabled device. Instead, what I would like is that the OS be sensitive to the type of screen that I am using and play well with a very well executed trackpad (which from what I have seen of Apple, they have executed really well). But on a device like the Surface RT, a touch enabled interface works because of the hybrid nature of the device - again, though, I should mention that I use the Surface RT usually as a laptop and seldom as a tablet. Naturally, for the phone, the touch interface is mandatory. But if MS is going to insist that even desktop machines (which are not going to die anytime soon) should have a touch optimized interface, I think they are making a mistake.An OS X tablet already exists. See Technologies for the Creative Mind | Modbook Inc.
However, I don't believe Apple has any interest in creating a full-fledged OS X tablet. They will continue to focus on improving the iPad, including its capabilities. It wouldn't surprise me, however, if Macs are eventually sold with touchscreens.
Consider that the Windows 8 experience only works well with a touchscreen. Assuming Microsoft sticks to their guns with the direction they're heading, I don't believe you will be able to buy a non-touchscreen Windows device in a year or two. If that holds, then you'll see Apple follow suit with touchscreen MacBook Pros, at the very least.
At Apple, Jony Ive is now in charge of both hardware design as well as software interfaces. I've read that he appreciates Windows 8's minimalistic interface elements. Don't be surprised if some of those elements make their way to the Mac.
I think we are talking about the same thing...with a few differences! Essentially, I mean that the OS should work out for itself whether or not the screen is touch-enabled or not (and the size of the screen for scaling purposes). Thus, while there would be minute differences between different kinds of displays, the generic orientation would remain the same. Of course, I hasten to add that while ideally this would be the best-case scenario, whether or not this would be technologically possible or even viable (if possible) is a completely different matter.Optimized for touch doesn't mean touch only I have no problems in a touchless Windows 8 environment even without a Windows 8 optimized trackpad or mouse. Hot corners and keyboard shortcuts allow perfectly viable touchless navigation it is just a slightly different way of navigating than a non-touch optimized version of Windows (for example I use the Windows key a lot more now). I think MS has a pretty good OS balance and it is sure to improve. Far better than any other OS which is staying touch or non-touch only at the moment.
Sort of the same thing. I just meant in the broader conversation OSX is represented as not working with touch and Windows 8 is represented as only working with touch. Neither is actually the case. I don't think you need to go to one extreme or the other (say iOS-touch vs DOS-nontouch) or have the OS optimize itself depending on what types of interfaces it detects.I think we are talking about the same thing...with a few differences! Essentially, I mean that the OS should work out for itself whether or not the screen is touch-enabled or not (and the size of the screen for scaling purposes). Thus, while there would be minute differences between different kinds of displays, the generic orientation would remain the same. Of course, I hasten to add that while ideally this would be the best-case scenario, whether or not this would be technologically possible or even viable (if possible) is a completely different matter.