Microsoft to Impose Hardware Restrictions for Windows 8 Tablets

Status
Not open for further replies.

scook9

Distinguished
Oct 16, 2008
826
0
18,980
0
So it will pretty much become a wave of Microsoft ipads.....at least it makes choosing a product easier (if you actually wanted a microsoft tablet/phone that is)
 

rottingsheep

Distinguished
Jul 20, 2010
76
0
18,630
0
a right move for microsoft. i think they don't want windows 8 based tablets to be generalized as slow. different flavors, same experience... or the other way around.
 

dread_cthulhu

Distinguished
Dec 7, 2010
185
0
18,680
0
Personally, if I were a giant software corporation, I'd want some say in what systems my OS was running on as well. This will help with standardization, and prevent companies from trying to put the OS on hardware that it simply wasn't designed for. Kudos to Microsoft for putting some integrity into system builders.
 

COLGeek

Cybernaut
Moderator
Minimize hardware variation (just how customizable can a tablet be anyway?) and you maximize software compatibility with the hardware baseline. Less means more in this case. Makes sense.
 
G

Guest

Guest
MicroSloth has always been a driver through monopolistic tactics in business. Why should this make me wonder? They still have yet to comply with the DOJ. They after one thing your money!
 

NoCaDrummer

Distinguished
Aug 2, 2008
104
0
18,680
0
So they're trying to do to tablets what they did to netbooks - make them so expensive that they're not going to sell, and then the 'nix systems will continue to be the dominant players.
 
This reminds me of the cry out when MS said "no XP with less than 64MB", lol.

Did you guys even tried to run XP with less than 64MB? EVEN with 64MB? XD

Those restrictions are some-what a "common sense" thing, since you can't put, for instance, Win7 on a 486 and expect to tell MS "hey, your POS OS doesn't run on my 486!". Now... In all fairness... Why the hell a 5MP camera is mandatory, MS? Why? xD!

Cheers!
 

davewolfgang

Distinguished
Aug 30, 2010
451
0
18,810
17
This will help prevent the one main problem of Vista - OEM's putting it on WAY to low of hardware, and then MS getting blamed because it didn't work.

Although - they need to make SURE that the minimums will actually RUN the OS too....
 

adamboy64

Distinguished
Aug 9, 2010
337
1
18,785
0
[citation][nom]Yuka[/nom]This reminds me of the cry out when MS said "no XP with less than 64MB", lol.

Did you guys even tried to run XP with less than 64MB? EVEN with 64MB? XD

Those restrictions are some-what a "common sense" thing, since you can't put, for instance, Win7 on a 486 and expect to tell MS "hey, your POS OS doesn't run on my 486!". Now... In all fairness... Why the hell a 5MP camera is mandatory, MS? Why? xD!

Cheers![/citation]
Lolz. I've seen XP on 128mb, and that was pretty hilarious.
Your comment makes me want to try it on 32mb though.
 

house70

Splendid
[citation][nom]memadmax[/nom]Same thing apple is doing.[/citation]
Not quite, with Apple you get only ONE tablet, period. No customization, no choice of vendor/hardware manufacturer... nothing.
With MS, you get a MINIMUM specs requirement, then it's up to the manufacturer to improve on it. Resembles Apple's policy, but just on the first page, the rest of the book is completely different.
I, for one, prefer to have multiple choices and not get enrolled in an army of clones.
 

gracefully

Distinguished
Jan 30, 2010
761
0
19,160
60
I don't see how different it is from putting "Minimum Requirements" in their OSs. There's a reason they're there. Microsoft needs to be able to expect a certain level of performance from all tablets using their OS.
 

pjmelect

Distinguished
The original XP worked quite well on 128MB of memory and it was useable all be it slow on 64 MB. If you were to try the same thing with XP SP3 with the same amount of memory then it would be unusable. You do tend to get a bit of creep upward in the minimum specification when service packs get released and I imagine that Windows 8 will be the same.
 

jhansonxi

Distinguished
May 11, 2007
1,262
0
19,280
0
[citation][nom]house70[/nom]With MS, you get a MINIMUM specs requirement, then it's up to the manufacturer to improve on it.[/citation]Correct, but remember that M$ also had a maximum screen size limit on netbooks.
 

11796pcs

Distinguished
Jan 3, 2011
608
0
18,990
4
Yeah minimum specs are actually a really good thing to do for a product. Because if Microsoft hadn't put in place minimum requirements for Vista (1GB was still too low- 2 GB would have been better) we would have probably seen some 512MB Vista laptops and riots in the streets. Most consumers will pick the cheapest options and ask themselves later why their device is so slow.
 

hp79

Distinguished
Feb 6, 2006
173
0
18,710
8
I think it's really good to do this so that shady manufacturers don't try to cut too many corners and release shiitty products with MS Windows on it.

Limiting a maximum (like screen size for netbooks) would be a problem, but limiting a minimum spec is always welcome. I hate those real crappy low-end devices with android on them. This hurts the brand of the OS.
 

11796pcs

Distinguished
Jan 3, 2011
608
0
18,990
4
Ok, I have a Compaq Presario sitting around with an AMD K6 3D processor @398 MHz and 28 MB of RAM running Windows XP- and it is terrible- don't even try it it's a complete waste.
 

_Pez_

Distinguished
Aug 20, 2010
415
0
18,810
10
I prefer some flexibility in the software side, that's why I choose Android over MS OS. Quality has to have some flexibility in hardware and software sides. I would complain and say the same as hardware manufacturers.
 

Ragnar-Kon

Distinguished
Apr 13, 2010
517
0
18,990
2
[citation][nom]otacon72[/nom]Totally wrong... Apple produces one tablet with their own locked down OS. This is simply saying you must meet certain hardware requirements. Does not surprise me Acer is complaining..they always produce the cheapest garbage.[/citation]
Eh that remains to be seen exactly what they mean by "hardware requirements." They could say something like: You can only use this chipset and this processor with speeds from 1.0ghz to 1.5ghz, with a screen size of 7 inches. In which case you'll essentially end up with a bunch of Windows-based iPads with different company logos on the cover.

We shall see, but for the Windows 8 tablets, it seems like minimum requirements might be something more than the traditional minimum requirements.
 

compuservant

Distinguished
Jun 1, 2011
43
0
18,530
0
[citation][nom]gracefully[/nom]I don't see how different it is from putting "Minimum Requirements" in their OSs. There's a reason they're there. Microsoft needs to be able to expect a certain level of performance from all tablets using their OS.[/citation]
I think you need to read the article a little better. "Bloomberg report cites sources that say Microsoft will offer chipmakers incentives to partner with a single PC manufacturer". So much for your "preference to have multiple choices. Sounds like M$ is repeating itself by imitating/stealing concepts from Apple not unlike it crappy OS's that are always 10 years behind Apple's. At least, we can be pretty certain this will be their last OS. Now they are trying to imitate Apple again with their Windows approved tablet. Sounds like another Zune. To quote a passage from Wikipedia, "Zune market share decreased to 2% in the first half of 2009, according to the NPD Group". Windows 8 tablets will probably sell as well as the original Windows tablet PC's. Don't try to tell me Apple was copying M$ with the iPad given there is no comparison between the two. The iPad created a new market. The M$ x86 based tablets never took off because they stink. I'm required to use one at work and never use the swivelling screen/stylus component because the interface and handwriting recognition software are terrible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS