Ask Paul: October 20 (Premium)

Hola from Mexico City, and Happy Friday! Here’s another great set of reader questions to kick off the weekend a bit early.

Windows 12?

will asks:

I was curious if the next version of Windows, Windows 12 or whatever it is called, will be more of something like we see with the Windows 11 23H2 release in that it is an update that brings some new features and some slight UI changes, but overall is still similar to the current Windows 11 OS.  This would change over time as the yearly updates continue, but the changes are more incremental vs a big update with sweeping changes.  IMO this would make it easier to for businesses and enterprises to continue to move forward with upgrades and updates without needing to wait long periods of time for testing.

Obviously, we can only speculate. But if there is a Windows 12 and it arrives one year from now, then, yes, this makes sense. And generally speaking, it’s a good plan: Keep the codebase relatively consistent and provide a clean year-over-year upgrade plan that mimics the Windows 10 lifecycle but with a brand change every three years. This is somewhat similar to what Apple did with macOS: After many OS X (version 10) releases, it has incremented the version number each year while just calling it macOS.

But there has to be something to justify the Windows 12 name. With Windows 11, Microsoft can at least point to the simpler new user interface, which I think most would at least agree is pleasant and modern. (I think it makes Windows 10 look horribly dated.) So what’s the hook for Windows 12?

This past February, I first made the case that Windows 12 would be the AI release. But Microsoft has instead accelerated the adoption of AI features in Windows, most recently by shipping all of the big new features from Windows 11 23H2 ahead of that release to ensure that customers were forced to adopt them. This doesn’t mean that Windows 12 won’t be about AI, but it does diminish it as a new product version. It can’t just be about requiring an NPU either broadly or for certain features. It has to sell new PCs, and entice the enterprise to skip Windows 11 and adopt 12 instead. Etc.

Or … maybe it doesn’t. Maybe I’m still struggling with Microsoft’s new strategy for evolving Windows with new features every single month (“continuous innovation”). And maybe it’s important to remember that a Windows license is a Windows license, and that Microsoft gets paid regardless of which version corporate customers use. The security baseline for Windows 11 and 12 can be the same anyway. So what does it matter?

Ultimately, we’re just waiting on Microsoft, as usual. But if this past year has taught me anything, it’s that the company’s historic inability to communicate effectively combined with the seemingly random way in which it installs new features on PCs is a recipe for even more uncertainty. Meaning, they’ll come clean on Windows 12, or whatever next year’s 24H2 release is eventually. But even that won’t tell the full story. This makes life hard for people like me and, I suspect, for many of you as well. I’d prefer to know explicitly what will happen and not have to guess all the time.

Tablets vs. PCs

jrzoomer asks:

Paul what do you see as the future for tablets, are they purely a consumption devices (or  niche professional devices)?

I recall Bill Gates claiming over 20 years ago that the Tablet PC was going to take over the PC market an thinking to myself, um, I don’t know. That whole promise was predicated on handwriting, which we should have predicted was doomed to fail because handwriting is inefficient compared to typing or even voice. That the PC industry that Gates himself championed and almost singularly willed into existence is the reason for this is somewhat ironic. But him not understanding that is weird. Perhaps he’s just a product of his generation.

And then we have Steve Jobs, who proclaimed the “post-PC era” when he introduced the iPad as a purely consumption-oriented device. Apple quickly fixed that mistake by adding creator-focused apps and capabilities to the iPad, and it later went after Surface with the iPad Pro and broader keyboard and touchpad compatibility in the platform. But as of today, the iPad has failed to jumpstart a post-PC era. Instead, we have a variety of device types, each of which is very good at some things and less good at others. This is fine: Different people have different needs and can get work done—or consume content—on whichever device type(s) work the best for them.

To your question specifically, I don’t see tablets disappearing or replacing the PC in the short term. But there are some emerging technologies that will impact both these device types. Key among them is the foldable screen, which could enable that long-time dream of the one device that can replace two (or more) others and refute my right tool for the job theory. I’m going to publish something about the HP Spectre Foldable PC soon, ahead of the review, that discusses how that device is in fact a major evolution in the PC space, for example, but you can look at folding smartphones like the Google Pixel Fold as providing the same step forward in that market, too. Neither is quite there yet, in part because of the expense. But prices will inevitably come down as the technology improves. And so we need to think about what the world looks like when that happens.

Tablets could go a few different ways from a form factor perspective. But with rumors of a folding iPad coming in the next few years, it’s not hard to imagine a device that is portable and automatically protects the display when closed, but then becomes this bigger, more expansive thing when unfolded. And that this would work well across a variety of sizes. I know people are concerned about the reliability of these displays, but that’s actually pretty much solved. HP, for example, is more worried about the longevity of the Spectre Foldable’s hinges than that of the display; the display, they told me, will outlive the hinges (and the hinges are just as durable as any of their traditional laptop hinges).

But that’s just the form factor …

Also regarding the market, is the future dominated by Apple, or does the Microsoft Surface series or Android platform (Google, Samsung) potential players going forward?

So this is in many ways the more pertinent discussion to me because it speaks to the central question of personal computing. Which device or devices do we use now, running which platforms? And how does that change moving forward?

The iPhone was the first major push in demoting the PC from the center of personal computing to just playing one of many roles. And while the iPad and other tablets—and the Chromebook—have yet to displace the PC in its more limited role as a productivity device, it’s only a matter of time before they catch up. By which I mean catch up enough for most people. The PC may basically become a workstation in the future, something used by professionals in whatever markets but by fewer and fewer mainstream users. Of course, that will require the iPad, Android tablets, and Chromebooks to mature further. And each is doing so right now, albeit slowly.

Aside from the iPad advances I already mentioned, Google has done a great job of adapting Android to bigger displays, which benefits Android tablets and Chromebooks. And it has expanded Chromebook in baby steps with Chromebook Plus. Related software/services advances like PWAs and web apps also play a role in making these platforms more viable: The age of the Windows-only app is pretty much over aside from some legacy stragglers.

There are various things we could look at to gauge progress towards this future. And we should consider Microsoft’s ongoing push to make Windows more device-like, both on the hardware level with Arm and on the software level with more simplified UIs. But the democratization of the PC’s capabilities is relentless, and it will catch up with Windows eventually. And the bellwether for this shift, I think, will come from Microsoft. It kind of has to.

Microsoft made big news when it announced more full-featured Office apps on iPhone and then later iPad and Android. But we’re all waiting for a similar shift on the web, when Microsoft will finally make the web versions of its Office apps more full-featured and, more to the point, more like the native Windows and Mac apps with full offline support. Once this happens, and it has to, these web apps will solve the needs of most users. And the native desktop apps will become to software what PCs will become to hardware, workstation-class products used only by the elite, by professionals.

And you can see this future right now. Many here will poo-poo Google Docs and Sheets and the other Workspace web apps. But these apps already meet the needs of most people, and comparable Office web apps from Microsoft will do the same. This will give Microsoft three tiers of Office functional levels across mobile, web, and desktop for its core apps, while most new apps will be web-based. This is the shift.

And it’s already happening all around Office. Clipchamp is the poster child for a powerful but easy-to-use video editor. Adobe just brought Photoshop to the web. This shift is happening everywhere, and the key to it is not fully duplicating the functionality of full desktop apps, not because it’s impossible (though it is, with many features), but because most people don’t need it all. They just need some subset of the full feature set. And we know that Microsoft knows exactly what that is. They can do this. I’m curious they have not already.

I know that a lot of people hate the new Outlook, and while I get that, I feel that this is a preview of what’s to come from Office: Simpler and web-based, and if you’re a power user with specific needs—I want to call them “legacy” needs, but maybe that’s unfair—then you can keep using the old stuff.

To your question. (Sorry that took so long.)

I do think that simpler and more modern platforms like iPad, Android, and Chromebook will play a bigger role in the productivity- or creation-based space moving forward and that while the PC will remain one device there, it will be relegated more and more to power users over time as the aging user base that’s used PCs traditionally just dies off. What mix of each we’ll see is unclear. But part of that “one device that can do two things” dream includes some form of desktop docking for those mobile devices when a bigger display and a real keyboard and mouse are needed. Which will be rare for some/most people. But a folding display will (or could) solve the need for an external display too. That makes life simpler, and it could help push this era forward.

As for the PC, there is a chance that foldable displays and a hoped-for resurgence with Arm could forestall the future I see coming or even prevent it from happening. But ultimately, I think simple wins. (Or a combination of simple and “it just works.”) And the PC, while powerful and capable, just isn’t simple. And that will turn off people, most of whom are much younger than me or not born yet. The coming generations will be more focused on devices than PCs, unlike me (and probably most of you).

I’m very interested in this topic. And I keep wondering why Microsoft hasn’t pulled the trigger on a more capable Office on the web. It’s gotta happen, and when it does, all bets are off.

Which PC?

rustyflip asks:

Hi Paul, is there a particular brand/ model of laptop you would recommend as a general purpose Windows PC for an intermediate user? If possible, it would need to drive two external monitors.

This is one of the “it depends”-type things because it depends on the price point, the use cases/needs, and then the resolution/capabilities of those external displays. But almost any modern mid-tier or premium laptop should provide an acceptable level of performance for mainstream productivity work and, in most cases, be able to drive two external displays.

The easiest way to connect two external displays (directly) today is via USB-C, so if you can find a laptop with two additional USB-C ports (beyond the one used for power) and can work with 15-inch-ish external displays, that’s an easy fit. If you want to use desktop displays, same deal if you can get USB-C connectivity. Otherwise, you may need a dock of whatever kind (USB-C or Thunderbolt) with the right video-out capabilities. Honestly, a dock is ideal because you can get one that provides a single cable solution for the PC, where the USB-C cable from the dock provides power for the laptop and whatever connectivity options.

(I don’t do this myself, but you can also connect to some displays wirelessly. This seems to be a lot more common with TVs than traditional displays, however.)

As for a specific PC model, I prefer HP and Lenovo laptops and mostly buy HP myself (that’s true for displays as well). The HP Dragonfly Pro that I brought with me to Mexico is nearly ideal for my needs (powerful/efficient processor, 16 GB of RAM, 14-inch display), and it has three USB-C ports, two of which offer Thunderbolt 4/USB4 capabilities (the other is USB 3.2), and all of which offer DisplayPort 1.4 video-out. And that means they should each support up to 8K displays at 120 Hz. This PC is $1400 right now on HP.com, which is just about right for a premium PC like this.

But there are laptops with smaller and bigger displays, of course. A similarly-specced HP Spectre x360 with a 13.5-inch 3:2 display starts at about $1100 right now but only has two Thunderbolt 4/USB-C ports, so you would need a dock. An HP Envy laptop with a 16-inch display is about $1050, it only has two TB/USB-C ports as well, but it also has HDMI for video-out.

Not sure of your needs, but I would consider a docked setup with a hub/dock either way.

What the tech?

gregsedwards asks:

I’m curious whatever happened to What the Tech, the podcast that Andrew Zarian and you used to do semi-weekly. You often covered a lot of the same content as your other shows, but I always enjoyed watching you guys interact. It was the only show I followed o the GFQ network. Obviously, it’s no longer happening, but is there more story there (that you care to tell, of course). Did you guys announce a hiatus or discuss why you decided to end it? Would you ever consider spinning that back up again? Thanks!

I honestly don’t know. Leading up to the end, we were unable to record more and more frequently because of his other work responsibilities, and the last time I heard from him was March 18, 2021, when he contacted me to “take the next two weeks off and regroup.”

I kind of let it go for a while to see what would happen. But then it got kind of ludicrous and he never contacted me again. There were a few times on Twitter that year where I saw him telling other people we’d be back, but as time went on, I started telling people that I didn’t see that ever happening.

I love Andrew and I miss him, but given all the podcasting work I’m doing now I just can’t see picking this up again. I do have a theory about why he dropped off the face of the earth, at least with regards to me, but I can’t really tell that story because it involves another friend and a confidentiality that I won’t break. But the short version is that Andrew may feel that I ignored him at a certain point about a month after that March 221 communication. And while I sort of understand that, had he simply contacted me I would have told him the story, and I know he would understand. If I ever do hear from him again, I will certainly explain.

Anyway. I wish him nothing but the best. I always enjoyed being with him, virtually or in person, and miss the friendship and comradery. He’s a great guy, and a smart guy, and he has a wide range of knowledge and innate charisma that make him a natural for podcasting or similar.

Opening the Activision Blizzard vaults

christianwilson asks:

Now that the ABK deal is done, are there any Activision and/or Blizzard franchises you would like to see brought back with a modern release? They’ve got a shockingly deep catalog that has been mostly on ice for years, even decades.

The thing I’m looking forward to the most is getting the older Call of Duty games on Game Pass. I will likely replay many of them, and I hope that this change means there will be a decent volume of people on multiplayer. I miss a lot of those old maps.

But looking back further than that, the original Activision of course dates back to the original Atari 2600. I’m not sure that games of that era are of interest today beyond nostalgia packs, or even which intellectual property the current company still owns. But there are some interesting properties in there (potentially, assuming rights).

For example, Activision at one point acquired Infocom, the maker of many classic text-based games, and when Bobby Kotick purchased the firm in the early 1990s, they released a sequel to Zork called Return to Zork. So perhaps graphical games in the Zork universe are in order.  Activision also made the MechWarrior games and I recall some title in that series (or like that) being quite good on the OG Xbox.

Activision also acquired Raven at some point, and that studio was responsible for the DOOM engine-based Heretic and Hexen titles, which were terrific. Modern remakes of these would be amazing. (Microsoft also owns Zenimax, which owns Id Software, so this is now possible; there were legal disputes over these games previously.) Phil Spencer has specifically mentioned Hexen, but I’d go for Heretic first.

I guess those are the big ones I can think of. But this company is so big there are probably games in there I’ve forgotten about or don’t know that they own. I’m curious to see what happens there.

Visual Studio pricing

simionda asks:

Regarding Visual Studio subscription first year pricing… If you look at the costs for subscribing to Visual Studio, the first year is significantly more expensive than the later years (Enterprise is $5,999 first year, $2,499 each year thereafter). As a developer, my company provides me with the Enterprise subscription, and I’ve become accustomed to the features (like Intellitrace) such that I’d like to license my own copy. While the subscription from my company is allowed to be installed on my home computer, I’d rather not get into any legal issues of using “their” provided tools for my personal development.  This high first year price is a significant barrier to do so.

I know this typically isn’t your area of expertise nor are you able to answer “Why?” questions, but with your experience, any ideas why Microsoft – a company built around development – would limit access to the development tools in such a manner? What benefit would Microsoft get with that high introductory price?

I always get pushback on this, but I have never understood charging for Visual Studio, let alone charging just stratospheric pricing. But working within the system, comparing the various Visual Studio product editions, and looking at the cost of each, I guess it just comes down to what you need and what you can live without. (And it looks like Dev Box is out of the question given its pricing and requirements.)

What you haven’t told me is what you intend to do here. If you’re considering creating some application, service, or whatever on the side to see where life takes you, you could of course just start with the Community edition, which is free for personal use, and then move up to Professional, which is $45 per month, if this side-hustle takes off. Most of the features unique to Enterprise edition seem to be geared towards big companies with teams of developers that would subsidize this cost for them, but I agree that it’s weird that debugging features like IntelliTrace aren’t available in Professional at least.

I believe I’m going to interview Amanda Silver, who runs this part of the company at Ignite, and I will ask her about Visual Studio pricing. This won’t help you in any way, as I don’t see anything changing, but I’m curious about the “whys” on pricing and product edition differentiation.

Bose earbuds

ggolcher asks:

Any thoughts on the recently-released Bose QuietComfort Ultra Earbuds? Any plan to review them?

I’m a little leery here because the Bose QuietComfort II earbuds didn’t fit my ears properly, and so I ended up giving them to my wife and going back to the OG earbuds. From what I can tell, the Ultra earbuds are nearly identical to the IIs, but include spatial audio. Which I’m interested in, vaguely, but can’t really take advantage of because the apps/services I use most often with earbuds—YouTube Music, Audible, PocketCasts—don’t support it anyway. And I don’t watch a lot of videos while wearing earbuds, just occasionally on planes, and that certainly doesn’t justify the price to me.

I do love the active noise cancellation (ANC) in the Bose, but the poor fit on the IIs often ruined that. And for whatever reason, the OG earbuds seem even better in this regard: I tested both side-by-side at the gym and preferred the originals. Overall, I guess I’ll sit this one out and see what happens next. But earbuds are also tough like this, as a set that fits well in one person’s ears with whatever tips don’t in another’s. I have generally been lucky with this, but not with the IIs. And it’s possible I’d even go back to over-ear ANC headphones in the future just to avoid this problem, though I don’t like headphones on my ears.

The right mix

spacecamel asks:

A couple of weeks ago, the big story was that Microsoft removed Wordpad from Windows, and people worried about what would be next.  I thought the opposite and think Microsoft should remove much more from Windows.  If Windows is a lower priority in Microsoft’s world, they should get fewer resources to maintain/expand it.  Sheading cruft would help them finish the job.  They have an app store to allow people to put things back into Windows, so why do they still install so many applications when you start?

Microsoft has of course gone back and forth on this over the years, the best example being the shift from Windows Vista, which had lots of reasonably high-quality apps built-in, to Windows 7, which stripped out most of those apps and put them in a separate Windows Live Essentials pack that could be updated more frequently. And before that, Windows Setup would actually pop up a window listing those apps and let you pick and choose which to install with the OS and which to ignore, but that, too, is obsolete because most in-box don’t take up much disk space anyway and some are required for specific experiences to work; removing them would break things.

Today, these systems are obsolete, as Microsoft can update the in-box apps in Windows (and many system components) outside of version upgrades, and it of course can and does add new features every month. So the question here has shifted to which apps “should” be included and, of those, which should be uninstallable.

And that is a debate, for sure. But it’s an even bigger concern, I think, with Microsoft Edge, which is so bloated with functionality now, much of it superfluous, that it’s almost unusable (and that’s true even if you ignore that it tracks your activities online and gives this information to advertisers). My opinion on Edge is that it should be architected like Visual Studio Code and ship in a minimalist state where you can add whatever subset of that extra functionality that you want via extensions. And that surely there is some simple UI that it could pop up on first run that would offer those features to the user, so they could pick and choose.

A few points though. Edge, like Windows, is no doubt architected with the assumption that those features are all there, and there are very real advantages (to Microsoft) to that. We may disagree on what’s in Edge (or Windows), but Microsoft is doing this purposefully and no doubt intends for this stuff to be differentiators that will appeal to users. And it’s not clear that a similar plan for Windows would even work.

But that this idea mimics how Windows Setup used to work is interesting to me. And you can, of course, use various workarounds—like the time and currency format hack I wrote about in Roll Your Own Windows Time Machine (Premium)—or a utility like Tiny11 (which I’ve only briefly experimented with thus far) to install Windows 11 without a lot of the crap.

Regarding the Store, one of the issues with WordPad is that it’s a vector for malware, so putting it in the Store wouldn’t solve the problem: Microsoft would still need to support it. In this case, just removing it was the right choice and is the reason, I’m sure, that it’s disappearing. Most of the other apps you see in Windows are there for a reason, but if there are superfluous apps they do remove, like Paint3D, putting them in the Store can make sense. (Assuming there are no security issues in doing so.)