Originally Posted by Firefly7475
From what I know at the moment I would say no.
Depending on how they are written the two apps could share most of the same plumbing, but if you wanted a touch friendly UI and a "classic" Windows application that is going to be two separate UI apps the developer needs to deploy.
So if I can't open current Windows apps in the Metro tablet interface, I'm not clear on what Microsoft's split UI is really getting me.
The sales pitch seems to be that I can have a nice tablet UI, running new tablet friendly apps, which is fine. But then also if I need to do "real work" I can switch to "real Windows", whereupon I no longer have a nice tablet friendly UI. Yes, I can dock the tablet and work with a keyboard and mouse, but now I have a very small screen.
Am I misunderstanding? I seems as if I have a hybrid device that if it emphasizes size, weight and portability makes a useful tablet running a useful tablet OS that isn't actually Windows and isn't compatible with existing Windows software. Or, if it emphasizes power and desktop ergonomics, makes a good Windows machine for "real work" but a heavy, big tablet with short battery life,
How is this an improvement over having a tablet and a notebook/desktop? Sure, it's one device and I save a few bucks, but at what cost in usability?
I keep hearing people say how jazzed they are about having a mighty tablet to do "real work" but it looks to me like the real work part precludes usefulness as a tablet and tablet usefulness precludes real work-- unless you think running regular Windows on a 10" screen is going to be pleasant. Like folks keep mentioning Photoshop-- really? On a tablet sized screen with the standard desktop UI? Maybe in a pinch, but I don't think MS is pitching this as an emergency solution, do you? An conversely if I have a Windows 8 machine set up as a desktop and decide to grab the screen and go, it's probably going to be extremely large and heavy, so my "tablet experience" with the Metro UI is going to be pretty damn awkward.
It seems to me that MS is trying to claim that software can bridge the gap between two very different use scenarios with two very different hardware requirements, but I can't see how that's true. Sure, I can have a fall back scenario, but again that's not what MS is selling here- they're selling "no compromises." How is a useful standard Windows desktop that's too big and heavy to be a good tablet or a good tablet that's too small to make a useful standard Windows machine not a compromise?