In an otherwise innocuous blog post about new PCs announce at Computex, Microsoft talked up the need for something it calls Modern OS. And it does not appear to be Windows 10.
“A modern operating system is required for these new, modern PCs and innovative devices that the ecosystem will continue to build and bring to market,” Microsoft’s Nick Parker writes after running down a list of new PCs from Acer, ASUS, Dell, HP, Lenovo, and MSI.
Of this Modern OS—and, yes, it’s both “Modern OS” and “a modern OS”—Parker says it:
Sign up for our new free newsletter to get three time-saving tips each Friday — and get free copies of Paul Thurrott's Windows 11 and Windows 10 Field Guides (normally $9.99) as a special welcome gift!
"*" indicates required fields
Provides a set of enablers that deliver the foundational experiences customers expect from their devices. These enablers include “seamless updates where updates are invisibly done in the background; the update experience is deterministic, reliable, and instant with no interruptions.” So he clearly not talking about Windows 10.
Is secure by default. The state of this system, he says, “is separated from the operating system and compute is separated from applications. This protects the user from malicious attacks throughout the device lifecycle.”
Is always connected. The modern OS includes modern Wi-Fi and LTE 5G that just works. “Users never have to worry about dead spots,” he writes. “All of a user’s devices are aware and connected to each other.“
Provides sustained performance. “From the moment a user picks up their device, everything is ready to go, without having to worry about the next time the PC needs to be charged.” Sounds like he’s talking about a Qualcomm powered PC there.
Includes a set of delighters that deliver innovative human-centric experiences. These experiences are powered by AI, Parker says. “A modern OS is aware of what a user is doing tomorrow and helps them get it done, and it enhances applications making them more intelligent.
Is multi-sense. “People can use pen, voice, touch, even gaze – whatever input method a user wants to use works just as well as the keyboard and mouse.”
Provides the ultimate in form factor agility. “A modern OS has the right sensor support and posture awareness to enable the breadth of innovative form factors and applications that our partner ecosystem will deliver.”
Parker says that Microsoft is now “investing” in these “enablers and delighters” that underpin its vision for the Modern OS.
“They will provide the foundational elements for an evolution of the PC ecosystem and enable partners to deliver the more human-centric experiences of tomorrow,” he explains. “Microsoft [will also] deliver new modern experiences that take advantage of silicon advancements, powerful PCs, the cloud and power of AI. Experiences like an Asian Inking platform, cognitive recognition services that help with photo tagging and new Your Phone capabilities that let users mirror their Android phone screen on their PC and use the PC mouse and keyboard to interact with phone apps and content using either Wi-Fi or LTE.”
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#431303">In reply to spacein_vader:</a></em></blockquote><p>Windows trying to beat ChomeOS would be like LeBron James trying to beat Peter Dinklage at basketball.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#431239">In reply to Daekar:</a></em></blockquote><p>I don't know why people think that running Android apps or Linux on Windows will make much of a difference. Windows programs make up a functional superset of Android apps (with the exception of mobile-specific apps) while Linux is essentially non-existent among the majority of average users. Many people find Android on their smartphones to be adequate but what would they gain by running mobile apps on a non-mobile platform that they weren't designed for?</p><p><br></p><p>I think once again, tech enthusiasts are projecting their own desires on typical users. </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#431801">In reply to JHancox:</a></em></blockquote><p>Who cares what kernel it runs on? Certainly not the average end-user who's knowledge of kernels ends with popcorn. Some people prefer a Linux distro to Windows but a Linux distro is far more than just a kernel. If MS made a new desktop OS that used a Linux kernel it still wouldn't be "Linux on the desktop" unless they made it a full Linux distro. </p>
nfeed2000t
<blockquote><a href="#431300"><em>In reply to Jeff.Bane: </em></a>Yes it sounds exactly like RT. A simpler and more secure OS has always been needed and RT was the start. The first implementation of RT was clunky, unattractive, and the hardware was very slow. MS decided to drop RT instead of aggressively improving it month after month. Years have been lost but I am hopeful.</blockquote><p><br></p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#431398">In reply to nfeed2000t:</a></em></blockquote><p>The problem with RT wasn't that it was unattractive or that the hardware was slow. The problem was people weren't interested in a Windows device that couldn't run Windows programs. The failure of UWP and the relative success of the non-RT Surface devices make it very clear. Win32 compatibility is the key feature of Windows and any Windows-branded device that fails to support it or supports it badly will fail.</p>
skane2600
<p>"Provides a set of enablers that deliver the foundational experiences customers expect from their devices"</p><p><br></p><p>Translation: I have no idea WTF this is.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#431387">In reply to MikeGalos:</a></em></blockquote><p>Nice variation on <em>The Emperor's New Clothes. </em>Obviously anyone who doesn't think Microsoft has clearly described a new OS must be non-technical. </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#431393">In reply to MikeGalos:</a></em></blockquote><p>I think you're making an artificial distinction between a description and a teaser (and of course, teaser is just your characterization anyway). Whatever you want to call it, much of it wasn't technically credible. </p><p><br></p><p>“Users never have to worry about dead spots" Seriously? The OS is the only factor with respect to connectivity? </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#431509">In reply to MikeGalos:</a></em></blockquote><p>I would have thought that an Ad hominem attack was beneath you, but apparently not.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#431660">In reply to MikeGalos:</a></em></blockquote><p>You didn't get it. I was "translating" Parker's statement which is why I used the word "translation". It wouldn't make any sense for a translation to be attributed to the translator, right? IMO, he was speaking gobbledygook because he had no idea what this new OS actually was. </p>
skane2600
<p>So much "pie in the sky". Why not just add "An OS that is guaranteed to have zero bugs and zero vulnerabilities"?</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#431431">In reply to Jhambi:</a></em></blockquote><p>So the target audience is less than 1% of Windows users? </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#431895">In reply to Greg Green:</a></em></blockquote><p>The poster said the target audience were those who had "moved on" from Windows. That means people who were using Windows but then stopped when they bought a iPhone or an Android phone. Note that simply quoting relative marketshares doesn't measure that target group.</p><p><br></p><p>All of this is based on the popular but unproven assumption that smartphones are replacing desktop machines instead of just being purchased independently. </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#432084">In reply to Greg Green:</a></em></blockquote><p>The seamlessness of a basic refrigerator results entirely from it's singular and simple function. No meaningful OS could possibly be equivalently simple. The dominant factor in determining how complex a system is, is the depth and breadth of its capabilities. Simplicity and power are always trade-offs.</p>