Microsoft- Tablet PC is not a feature of the OS, it is not even necessary
I love Tablet PCs. That is no surprise as I have been using them and writing about them for years. The Tablet PC is a true innovation by Microsoft, one that has yet to be duplicated by anyone else. The Tablet PC enthusiast community has long groused over the lack of education to the public about what this platform can do for them. My recent declaration that the Tablet PC has devolved into just a feature of the OS and not a platform of its own touched a few nerves both in agreement with that opinion and disagreement. It turns out that I was wrong about the Tablet PC being a feature of the OS. I point to some statements by Steven Sinofsky of Microsoft who is blogging about the work being done in Redmond on Windows 7. I wasn’t going to comment on this blog post by Sinofsky lest I be accused of MS-bashing but as you might imagine a lively discussion is taking place about them. I had to read his thoughts several times before I could believe that anyone at Microsoft would state them publicly. Here is what Sinofsky wrote about the modular approach to Windows 7, the ability to turn off unnecessary bits of the OS to improve performance on some PCs:
Some examples are quite easy to see and you should expect us to do morealong these lines, such as the TabletPC components. I have a PC thatis a very small laptop and while it has full tablet functionality itisn’t the best size for doing good ink work for me (I prefer a 12.1” orgreater and this PC is a 10” screen). The tablet code does have afootprint in memory and on the 1GB machine if I go and remove thetablet components the machine does perform better. This is something Ican do today.
You may want to read his statements again. Then let it sink in for a bit. At first blush you may think that he is saying that the Tablet PC bits, part of the OS in Vista, are not always necessary. In fact, it almost appears that he is saying the Tablet PC functionality is not even necessary on a Tablet PC. Read his statement again. Take a deep breath. That’s exactly what Sinofsky of Microsoft’s Windows 7 team is saying. The Tablet PC functionality adversely affects system performance and you should turn it off on systems that don’t need it. That makes sense as not all PCs have the hardware needed to use that functionality. But Sinofsky is indicating that even on his Tablet PC, a system with the hardware to use that functionality, he doesn’t find the Tablet PC feature to be good enough to use. So he can turn them off and get better system performance on his Tablet PC.
Loren Heiny reacted as I did and has penned a good response to Sinofsky’s unbelievable statement about his Tablet PC. Sinofsky then responded to Loren that we are reading too much in what he said. I don’t think a person in his position of responsibility at Microsoft makes a clear statement like this and then backs off it. It is clear that Sinofsky believes that for his own use having the Tablet PC functionality on any device smaller than 12.1 inches is a waste of resources. That is unsettling enough in its own right but the fact that Sinofsky is helping determine what will be in Windows 7 makes this very unnerving.
Question.
If he doesn’t think that a tablet smaller than 12 inches is useful, why in the world did he buy a 10 inch tablet?
I understand why you’d turn off the tablet functions for a device without the hardware. But, why buy a tablet device, only to turn off the tablet functions, when there are devices that size without them?
That’s not how I read his initial statement and his reply to Loren’s question. I think he’s just saying that he doesn’t find the screen big enough to use as a tablet and therefore doesn’t see the point in wasting RAM and processing cycles on the tablet pc bits that aren’t being used. Big deal. I can understand where he’s coming from because I find the 8.9″ screen on my P1610 too small for much note taking because of my big hand writing.
Like I said on GBM, I think far too much is being read into this. Just because he used tablet components as an example of something that can be switched off doesn’t mean that Microsoft are dropping the features. The only thing in Windows 7 that has been demoed so far is the multitouch features that are directly related to tablets. The improvements that were made to the tablet components in VIsta also demonstrate a commitment by Microsoft to push the technology.
Nobody’s doing as much in this area as Microsoft and I’d be surprised if that changed. The tablet components clearly differentiate Windows from its competitors and OEMs like HP and Lenovo wouldn’t be doing so much in the tablet space if they thought the feature was going to be removed or depricated in some way.
I have no problem with people calling for improvements in the performance of tablet components (although I don’t find that they reduce performance at all) but it’s only reasonable that someone would want to switch them off if they’re not being used as they will always have some impact on performance if they’re running.
@Nate: I can answer your question. I wanted a small laptop to carry around for work and at the time there weren’t many as small as my P1610. The tablet features are nice but it’s not the main reason why I bought the laptop. I probably only use it as a tablet 20-30% of the time and I rarely use it for note-taking for the same reason as Sinofsky.
I too didn’t read anything too exciting in his statement. I think, even for a ‘person in his position’, it’s no big deal to say what features you use and not use. He even explained why he didn’t use it. He didn’t state he didn’t like the features, or that he wishes they would just take it out Windows 7. It’s just that he’s not using it too much for his small computer. You really are reading way too much in what he said Don’t worry
.
The change to including Media Center and Tablet PC functions as an overall part of the OS is a good move, provisionally.
If it is a signal of abandonment, then it is bad.
But at the same time they did this, at least in the Tablet PC functions, they improved them over the last version.
As long as they keep improving inking and pen functions, I don’t mind that the functions are a part of the overall OS.
Woadan
Speaking of inking…
Has anybody tried out the InkSeine app? (http://research.microsoft.com/research/downloads/Details/8e67ebaf-928b-4fa3-87e6-197af00c972a/Details.aspx)
Woadan
Thinking further on Sinofsky’s statements it bothers me more that he would make them at all than what his intentions might actually be. The Tablet features in Windows are one of the few features that the competition does not have at all and to state publicly that he doesn’t use them and can just turn them off smells bad to me.
James, given the fact that the principal employee supporting the Tablet PC is gone, it is a little troubling.
Woadan
James, he didn’t say that he doesn’t use them. He said he doesn’t use them on one particular machine. That’s a big difference. Also, would it really matter if he doesn’t use a tablet? Do people who manage networks need to worry in case Steven Sinofsky doesn’t use Active Directory every day? At the end of the day he’s only one person and all that matters is that he’s successfully managing the team that does produce the tablet bits.
Check out the thread at GBM for proof from Steven that tablet PCs won’t be dropped in Windows 7.
I disagree that he’s saying it doesn’t matter or any other interpretation that it will disappear.
To me, Sinofsky is saying that he doesn’t like TPC functionality on that system, so turning it off improves performance, but on a 12.1″ or larger form-factor, he would leave it on, because he prefers that size screen for note-taking.
I think the TPC market is fantastic, and I want to see it grow, but turning every comment into a fanatic’s viewpoint isn’t going to win over any critics. Stop and read his article again and think about it more thoroughly.
My take: he used a readily apparent example of feature modularity. Nothing more, nothing less. Since Tablet PC functionality is likely among the least used Windows features overall, I think it was the easiest and most effective example to use. Feature modules are a good thing in my opinion, and if personalized disabling of features can help performance, I’m all for it.
I agree with Kevin. I think it would be great for Microsoft to include a nice, simple to use application accessible from the Welcome Screen that allows you to pick modules/features that you do/don’t want installed. This would allow users to configure Windows at a high level when they first start it up thus combatting a lot of the complaints about how hard it is to tweak the OS.
A screen like this would prevent Jo Public from having to dig around in the Services or Programs and Features applets to turn off components that they don’t need. It wouldn’t have to include all services or programs like IIS, just the main ones like Tablet PC components, Readyboost, etc. that a user may not need.
Jake, I’m not so sure most users want to configure their systems. Most IT departments yes. Most users no. Now _personalization_ I can see users doing. I also agree that the ability to be able to control the OS is a good thing.
Also, I’ll take to heart the various comments here and on GBM that Sinofsky’s comment is not a big deal. It sounds like several commenters provide IT services and first and foremost they are agreeing with the ability to disable/enable features of the OS and are agnostic about what those features are. Seems reasonable.
“Nice”, “simple” and “Microsoft” all used in the same sentence. That may be the first time I’ve seen that.
Gordon
Microsoft’s benefit/curse has been that they’ve always been backwards-compatible. Sometimes it seems that Microsoft fears if they break an old feature, the masses will rise up against them. How many shims did they put into each version of the operating system to maintain backwards-compatibility of prior versions? After all, BAT files still work…
BAT files are simple and powerful. Let’s quite allowing apps to make hundreds of entries in hundreds of places in the registry. Let’s give each app 5 entries in only one place and then cut um off.
Sorry about the rant above, it was way off topic.
I think it was an example that everyone can relate to and understand. The only example that I can think of that might have been better is network services. If I was in an airplane and wanted to save all the battery I can, it would be nice to be able save some CPU cycles by shutting all networking process down.
Loren, you may be right. Kevin’s post just made me think about a post on E7 discussing this sort of configurability and James’s recent complaints about Vista’s performance. Although most may not be interested in this kind of thing I believe many would be and those that would generally want to do it when they startup Windows on a new PC for the first time. Anyway, I believe our disagreement was exactly what the E7 post was all about.
Forget about giving the “average joe user” the ability to readily turn off system features. Does anyone remember Windows NT and 2000 ? It was very easy to disable almost any service and device drivers via control panel. With XP Microsoft deliberately “dumbed down” W2K and buried system features several layers deep. The average user would be overwhelmed with the number of system services than Vista has and would screw up their OS in no time. Your typical Windoze user is not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed. I would would be very wary of giving them an axe to swing inside the OS kernel.
Oh my god! He is talking about a modular approach to an operating system.. so some tailor it to their machine’s needs.
After reading it 25 times and putting it through a rube goldberg machine it appears what he is really saying is that ford motor company has not made a good engine since the 427 sideoiler. Seriously, read it a few more times, it jumps right out.
Bill, “He is talking about a modular approach to an operating system.. so some tailor it to their machine’s needs.” Yes, that was the point of Steven’s post. No, that’s not what this discussion is about.
At the least he didn’t call the Tablet features a Vista Powertool or Widget.
Sheesh.
One step forward and two steps back.
i didnt know this thanks
http://www.mobile-computing-news.co.uk
About services, maybe the 2 great choices when we launch Windows is : You need a full version operational ? Or a light one (like for Netbook / Notebook) ?
When “Light one” is enabled, applications which needs some services could be able to fire on the right services needed, sort of virtual On/Off button. Instead of messages like “service unavailable” or obscur information because a service is off (error number 72389)…
Yes, a thrue automatic gearbox for light Windows to more powerful windows…