(I speak as an OS X/emacs/go/prolog/javascript/... hacker, who was up until recently using .net/C# a lot)
(I speak as an OS X/emacs/go/prolog/javascript/... hacker, who was up until recently using .net/C# a lot)
"Microsoft’s demo video shows Excel — the full version of Excel for Windows — running alongside new touch-based apps. They can make buttons more “touch friendly” all they want, but they’ll never make Excel for Windows feel right on a touchscreen UI."
No one said Excel for Win 8 would be just a touch friendly version. Gruber's argument assumes that Microsoft won't attempt to think through the use-case of touch on Office products. Given that Office is one of their top pilars of profitability, you can bet that they'll at least attempt to create Office 2012 (or whatever) to fit in naturally with how people will want to and need to use it.
"The iPad succeeds because it has eliminated complexity, not because it has covered up the complexity of the Mac with a touch-based “shell”. "
You definitely have a point with that but a particular quote comes to mind "Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler." - Albert Einstein. You can't do real work on the iPad version of iWorks. Making Excel simpler just for simplicities sake would be a mistake for Microsoft. Exposing the right amount of simplicity for the various tasks is what they should be aiming for.
"Apple’s radical notion is that touchscreen personal computers should make severely different tradeoffs than traditional computers — that you can’t design one system that does it all."
You can't until you can. iOS is built on the same technology of OSX. IF they wanted, they could make iOS able to run OSX apps and be able to do many of the things that OSX can do. They've simply elected not to.
Most of the tradeoffs that Apple has made has less to do with what is possible and more to do with training their developers. If I remember correctly, Apple elected not to allow a 2 button mouse for a long time earlier in their history because they wanted to force developers to build apps that worked just fine with 1 button... to force them to create a different type of experience for users.
Microsoft's goals are actually the opposite. They don't want to create a completely different experience. Their corporate clients will buy the next version of Windows because it is an evolution, not a revolution. Creating a revolutionary product may actually be counter to their interests.
Guess they've got the idea that users associate Windows for PCs 7 with Windows Phone 7 which seems to me ought to only be a minor consideration.
I guess this is a reason why it does not have recent blogs from some of the sites. Otherwise, it's definitely something I'd use