[Windows 8 General] e.mote:
Re: Intel's NUC - Its high price kills any chance of its widespread adoption, in view of the plethora of "small device" glut in said market. NUC is a proprietary STB that ignores existing solutions such as pico-ITX. Further afield, there is a groundswell of development interest in Rasp.Pi, Arduino, et al. If we are to take the notion of "ubiquitous" computing to be true, wherein sensors play a key role, then components will need to be cheap, and not $200-300 STBs. I view the NUC has another Intel attempt to sustain the same profit margin that it had when the Wintel monopoly still holds sway. I don't think it'll have any more success than the abortive ultrabook initiative.

>Touch UIs...are still rooted in WIMP but have been greatly cleaned up for a mobile/touch form factor.

Touch has many of the same screen elements as WIMP, but touch is not a reworked WIMP. Touch has no persistent pointer that you drag from one location to another. You actuate controls by touching them, your finger being the pointer. Touch is more efficient since any point on the screen can be accessed without need to move a pointer there. Touch is less efficient since a finger pointer can't be as precise as a mouse pointer, and also because using the screen for both input and output means the portion of the screen used as input can't function as output at the same point (your finger blocks it).

Another: Touch employs direct input, whereas the mouse is an "indirect" input method. The advantage of direct input is that it is more intuitive than an indirect pointer. If you've ever watched someone entirely new to PCs trying to use a mouse for the first time, there is a learning curve. The learning curve is smaller with touch.

A more ideal solution would be to have a UI that allows the speed of anywhere-access, but with precision. My observation is that this would necessitate an indirect-touch model. I see MS' concept of "blades" keyboard as on the same path toward that end, whereby the "touchpad" would serve as a proxy for actuating elements the display.

>Touch UI was pioneered long before the iDevices came around.

Yes, a better choice of words would be that iPhone "popularized" or "mainstreamed" touch use. I'm aware of the history of touch computing, having been old enough to use touch displays on HP stations (those use an infrared grid). As well, I'm aware of the limitations of the mobile platforms and OS'es as they stand today.

But platforms evolve over time. Early gens are inevitably limited. Watch the above clip of Ballmer and see how laughable Windows 1.0 was. There's nothing that limits a mobile platform from having large (wireless) displays, or keyboard/mouse, or dev tools, or productivity apps. Indeed, from the pipeline of announced products, those are or will happen. The next version of Office will be touch first. PC OEMs are introducing Android/Chrome laptops as the low-end of their line-ups.

The trick of course is that the platform must attain sufficient 3rd-party support for it to continue to evolve. Devs follow the money, and more users -> more software -> yet more users. Hence the virtuous cycle. iOS and Android have reached this critical-mass threshold. Productivity is doable.

But "can" and "will" are different terms. Goog may well continue to push Chrome for WIMP, and Apple may well keep Mac OS as exclusively for the desktop.

>Voice and thought continue to be the logical direction to go away from a keyboard.

I'm more interested in the near future, because the further out we go, the more it becomes sheer speculation than actionable assessments. Thought input is still in the primordial stage at this point. As for voice, voice rec has had incremental improvements, but it alone can't replace the role of a keyboard, which is why we still have soft keyboards for mobile.

That said, I'm intrigued with the notion of multi-modal input, where the combo can be synergistic to attain yet higher efficiency.

>I feel you may consider yourself to be somewhat an evangelist of technology, meaning the future only lies forwards and we are perhaps discarding the lessons of the past to create something new.

In forward-looking discussions like this, both are proffered, but I try to keep my opinions apart from my observations and assessments. I've made a fair number of statements here regarding what I see as the likely course for MS, and its likely consequences. Hopefully, I've provided sufficient support. But if not, I'd welcome any debate on their merits (or lack of).

>No disrespect but your post reflects the same qualities you chide someone else about.

True enough. It's hard to be civil toward one whose sole ability to communicate is with the "you suck" fanboy mode. Chalk it up to my temperament. I confess, I tend toward the "fight fire with fire" variety, and age hasn't sufficiently mellowed that inclination.

>So your point of view may be right in one segment of the economy - but doesn't ring true across the board.

My point of view pertains to the consumer segment, which at this point is the driver for other segments, including business. There's no argument that business has a slower adoption curve. There's also no argument that businesses can't stay on Win7 forever, and that MS has relegate WIMP as legacy. So, again, unless MS changes its mind, then it's a matter of when, not if, for businesses to jump onto the next prevailing caboose. As said, platforms evolve to meet its users' needs. That includes the needs of businesses.