I dont think Windows will have a steady decline, honestly. I mean I dont think theyre gonna be on top of the game in the future.. but honestly due to their corporate design, I think theyll pretty much be hit or miss far into the future (which has been their MO for a while). Windows 8 might suck, but shit Windows 9 might be good. Their structure, from what Ive heard, is so beurocratic and fragmented that good ideas need a lot of luck to make it to release. I see them releasing a random assortment of both terrible and pretty good things for a while.
Tho good products dont necessarily translate into actual sales or anything. Like the metro Windows mobile is actually pretty good, far more stable and pleasant to use than Android from what Ive seen, but its also super unpopular. And theres really no one developing for it..
I think the "rush" away from Windows all depends on if OpenGL gaming, and Linux ports in general, become accepted by the people who make AAA games. The Steam/Source Holy Duology moving over to Linux is a good first step, but how many games on Steam work on Mac now, compared to how many games Mac had prior to Steam coming over?
I agree that, for serious applications, Windows 8 is probably doomed, but Microsoft has to piss off a lot of people who have been very happy with Windows for multiple years. Win8 is a starting point, but I don't know if it's going to go over the Piss-Off-ed-ness Event Horizon.
I think Windows 8 will be successful among home users. It'll encourage cheaper touch screens and, with touch capabilities, is amazingly intuitive. Power users like us might grumble for a while, but it actually isn't that bad. It's just new to us and we have to get used to it. Besides, once Steam releases a Metro style launcher, who cares?
The main problem with Windows 8 isn't so much the new UI (to an extent), it's the new APIs that go with the new UI and the limitations of the new UI. That, combined with Microsoft really encouraging people to develop for Metro/WinRT/whatever they're calling it these days, is the problem.
On Windows 8, desktop apps will work just as they always have, which is all fine and dandy. Replacing the Start menu with a Start screen? Meh, not that big a deal, although some of the gesture-based UI elements are kinda clumsy with a mouse as opposed to a touch screen.
The main issue is with Metro apps and their API. For one thing, Metro apps can't really multitask. You can have at most one running in the background, and only if the user selects the side-by-side tiling mode (where the second app uses about 1/3 of the screen and the first app uses 2/3 of the screen). You can never have more than two apps on screen at the same time. Oh, and the actual APIs are severely limited compared to the classic Win32 API. They put severe restrictions on dynamic memory allocation, multithreading/multitasking, and so on. These restrictions are actually not too unreasonable on a low-powered device like a tablet or smartphone, but are completely ridiculous on a full-blown laptop or desktop.
If the Metro API evolves to the point where it has the same full functionality as straight up Win32 and desktop/laptop editions of Windows 8 both allow true window management with no arbitrary maximum number of windows on screen at the same time and full multitasking of all running apps, that would deflect my main criticisms of it. Alternately, if we get assurances that Win32 will never die on desktop/laptop editions of Windows, that may be sufficient as well. As it stands, desktop/Win32 seems to really be a second-class citizen on Windows 8, and that's where most of my complaints lie.
Here is the future I see. Starting with Windows 8, Windows starts to suck and starts dying a slow death with no revival ever. Apple doesn't make OSX any better for game developers, and abandon desktops entirely. People continue to make games for iOS, but that does not displace PC gaming. Lots of average people abandon desktop PCs entirely, but desktops still exist almost entirely for games and for professional workstations.
Games on OS X is just heating up, especially now that all the hardware has decent graphics cards these days. Steam's available, and there's a bunch of indie (e.g., Humble Bundle) development going on. Also, developers are porting games to iOS which, depending on gameplay, could be within throwing distance of desktop OS X. I'm also looking forward to retina (HiDPI) games. Even Apple can't get rid of desktops (and I'm including notebooks here): developers need something to develop on, and businesses rely on them.
As long as desktops aren't too much more expensive than consoles, there will be a gaming presence.
Personally, iOS is currently my only gaming platform.
I've got the popcorn ready for when Microsoft shoots themselves in both feet simultaneously with the release of Windows 8.
Even Apple can't get rid of desktops (and I'm including notebooks here): developers need something to develop on, and businesses rely on them.
Never underestimate Apple's willingness to dick over it's userbase in the name of "progress." Developers can use laptops.
Exactly. I'm ditching my Mac desktop for Windows desktop during my next hardware upgrade cycle and replacing my Windows laptop with a Mac laptop at the same time precisely for this reason. I'm tired of Apple's dicking over its professional/enthusiast market on the desktop. They still make great laptops, and given what I'd be using it for (general laptoppy stuff and iOS development), their laptops should be sufficient for my purposes.
I have an idea why all the Android phones are so big and none of the flagships can be small. Remember Apple put a ton of effort into making its own CPUs and batteries and such. It's not easy to get more horsepower into less physical space. I don't think these non-Apple companies have the capability to make a device as small as the iPhone that still matches up in terms of speed, memory, battery life. If their biggest phones were iPhone sized, they would all be comparatively inferior to the iPhone on the hardware spec sheet. Lucky for them, they managed to succeed at marketing bigger being better.
Yeah, that's pretty much it. The two biggest reasons for making larger phones are: 1) It's easier to fit more powerful components into a larger footprint. 2) People keep buying gigantic phones for some reason
While I do believe that an iPhone-sized Android flagship phone would be wildly successful, you can see why companies like Samsung are reluctant to make one.
Related: I was listening to Dan Harmon's podcast (Harmontown) and he consistently refers to his Galaxy Note 2 as the "Samsung Gigantor."
Eh, I don't really see the need for a large iPhone. It would probably have another screen resolution that devs would need to support, and I generally dislike large phones (the iPhone 5 is pretty much the largest phone I can use comfortably. I have small hands.)
Eh, I don't really see the need for a large iPhone. It would probably have another screen resolution that devs would need to support, and I generally dislike large phones (the iPhone 5 is pretty much the largest phone I can use comfortably. I have small hands.)
If you read the linked speculation, the point is that it wouldn't be a new resolution. Just as the iPad Mini uses the same resolution as the iPad 2 but with higher pixel density (the same pixel density as the iPhone 3GS), the iPhone Maxi would use the same resolution as the iPhone 5 but with the same pixel density as the New iPad.
This is what was predicted for the iPad Mini (resolution of the iPad but using iPhone 3GS LCD density) and it turned out to be true. It's not out of the question that the same kind of speculation might prove true again.
As soon as an iPad mini retina is out I'm buying one.
While I would kinda want an iPad mini Retina, what would I do with it? It would sit next to my bed, and I would use it instead of iPhone in bed for slightly more comfort. That's about it. Price would have to be way low to justify that.
I'd use it for music and lyrics. Putting a laptop on a piano is really tricky, and an iphone is too small to read. I've used my girlfriend's iPad for this purpose many times, and it works great, but it'd be a bit big for traveling.
Also I'd use it for PDF reading. I've got loads of books and documents to read, and it's clumsy to read them on a laptop screen and, again, my phone is too small.
I don't do music, but PDF reading is a great use of the iPad that the Kindle is not so good at. Still, I don't have that many PDFs that it's worth buying an expensive device just to read them more comfortably.
Comments
Tho good products dont necessarily translate into actual sales or anything. Like the metro Windows mobile is actually pretty good, far more stable and pleasant to use than Android from what Ive seen, but its also super unpopular. And theres really no one developing for it..
I agree that, for serious applications, Windows 8 is probably doomed, but Microsoft has to piss off a lot of people who have been very happy with Windows for multiple years. Win8 is a starting point, but I don't know if it's going to go over the Piss-Off-ed-ness Event Horizon.
On Windows 8, desktop apps will work just as they always have, which is all fine and dandy. Replacing the Start menu with a Start screen? Meh, not that big a deal, although some of the gesture-based UI elements are kinda clumsy with a mouse as opposed to a touch screen.
The main issue is with Metro apps and their API. For one thing, Metro apps can't really multitask. You can have at most one running in the background, and only if the user selects the side-by-side tiling mode (where the second app uses about 1/3 of the screen and the first app uses 2/3 of the screen). You can never have more than two apps on screen at the same time. Oh, and the actual APIs are severely limited compared to the classic Win32 API. They put severe restrictions on dynamic memory allocation, multithreading/multitasking, and so on. These restrictions are actually not too unreasonable on a low-powered device like a tablet or smartphone, but are completely ridiculous on a full-blown laptop or desktop.
If the Metro API evolves to the point where it has the same full functionality as straight up Win32 and desktop/laptop editions of Windows 8 both allow true window management with no arbitrary maximum number of windows on screen at the same time and full multitasking of all running apps, that would deflect my main criticisms of it. Alternately, if we get assurances that Win32 will never die on desktop/laptop editions of Windows, that may be sufficient as well. As it stands, desktop/Win32 seems to really be a second-class citizen on Windows 8, and that's where most of my complaints lie.
As long as desktops aren't too much more expensive than consoles, there will be a gaming presence.
Personally, iOS is currently my only gaming platform.
I've got the popcorn ready for when Microsoft shoots themselves in both feet simultaneously with the release of Windows 8.
I have no particular use for this... but I can think of some applications.
http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/1/3941018/less-is-more-theres-an-iphone-sized-gap-in-the-android-phone-market
1) It's easier to fit more powerful components into a larger footprint.
2) People keep buying gigantic phones for some reason
While I do believe that an iPhone-sized Android flagship phone would be wildly successful, you can see why companies like Samsung are reluctant to make one.
Related: I was listening to Dan Harmon's podcast (Harmontown) and he consistently refers to his Galaxy Note 2 as the "Samsung Gigantor."
A crazier prediction: iPhone Plus is real, and huge
Compared to current lineup:
Compared to big Android phones:
This is what was predicted for the iPad Mini (resolution of the iPad but using iPhone 3GS LCD density) and it turned out to be true. It's not out of the question that the same kind of speculation might prove true again.
Also I'd use it for PDF reading. I've got loads of books and documents to read, and it's clumsy to read them on a laptop screen and, again, my phone is too small.
Problem would be midi... I'd need to somehow plug the midi shit into the tablet.
Actually... Someone should kickstart some dedicated software for notation display coupled with a music stand designed to mount an iPad...
I don't do music, but PDF reading is a great use of the iPad that the Kindle is not so good at. Still, I don't have that many PDFs that it's worth buying an expensive device just to read them more comfortably.
I may have to get a modern USB one.
...
MY FIRESTUDIO HAS A MIDI INTERFACE I NEVER NOTICED!
By the way, what model is your mixer/control surface?