PenPoint vs. Pen Windows: Developer Reactions

Now that Pen Windows and PenPoint have had their grand openings, we thought it would be informative to get some reactions from developers working on pen-based applications. Many developers that we talked to were reluctant to comment, saying that it’s too early and that they are still in the decision making and planning process. However, we did find a few brave souls who provided some insightful comments.

PenPoint Has It Over Windows 3

Developers have mixed reactions to Pen Windows. Scott Hansen of Hansen Software, a maker of custom applications for the GridPad computer, said his firm “was a little disappointed in Pen Windows.” It’s just a set of additional calls to allow a pen to interface with existing Windows applications. Hansen said he was more impressed with PenPoint. “It’s like apples and oranges.” Hansen said he believes that PenPoint is “the wave of the future, but the learning curve is horrendous.” What makes PenPoint difficult, says Hansen, is that it’s object oriented in design and execution but is based on a conventional programming language.

Michael Baum of PenSoft told us that “Pen Windows based on Windows 3 is not going to cut it. The lack of multitasking is a problem. Multitasking is very important to mobile computing and one of the nice things about PenPoint. We’re really looking at the next generation of Windows as the level of support.” (See our story on Windows 4, which expands on this view).

Slate Likes Both Flavors

Not surprisingly, Slate’s Vern Raburn likes both Pen Windows and PenPoint. His company has announced support for both environments. Nevertheless, he pointed out some important pros and cons. Raburn told us that because it’s an extension of Windows, Pen Windows has “a lot more tools; it’s more mature than PenPoint.” On the other hand, PenPoint is “real state of the art. The object oriented programming environment makes us really productive in it.” In addition, Raburn pointed out that notepad computers will attract “people who don’t use computers at all at this point. For these people, the advantages of Pen Windows [such as Windows compatibility and the large application base] may be irrelevant.” Raburn predicted that PenPoint may dominate vertical market applications, where developers are starting from scratch anyway. Pen Windows may be more successful in the general-purpose, horizontal application area.

Hardware is the Key

The real key, according to all three of these observers, and we certainly agree, is the hardware and the support of OEMs. According to Michael Baum, “support for PenPoint in the OEM space is a lot stronger than for Pen Windows.” But Baum thinks Pen Windows will have success in the laptop market. “OEMs may look at Pen Windows as an environment for a better laptop. They see PenPoint as an opportunity to develop a new kind of computer.” Baum also predicted different distribution channels for Pen Windows based and PenPoint based computers. Laptops running Pen Windows will sell in conventional computer retail channels such as ComputerLand. PenPoint machines are more likely to sell in large department stores such as Macy’s.

Raburn sees Pen Windows applications appearing on a diverse set of hardware platforms. “We finally have enough MIPS to isolate the developer from the hardware. Tricks with the ROM BIOS are no longer necessary.” Because of this isolation from the hardware and the higher level of software development, “the virtual monopoly of Intel is not going to last. RISC will become much more important.” Raburn acknowledged that this trend in hardware could give Microsoft an advantage in the pen-based game.

PenPoint May Be First to Market but Needs Hardware

Nevertheless, Raburn thinks that PenPoint may get to market first. GO has been working on PenPoint for almost four years. Microsoft started Pen Windows development less than a year ago.

And getting to market is the key concern for Scott Hansen. “Do I jump in feet first when I can’t sell anything right now because there’s no hardware platform?”

Indeed, the hardware is the big question. While Microsoft has deep pockets and plenty of time to wait, GO needs some solid hardware platforms so that it can get its software into the marketplace. One industry insider told us that GO made a “crucial mistake” in dropping development of its own hardware platform for PenPoint. Now, GO is totally dependent on the whims and timetables of OEM manufacturers — a situation which is beyond GO’s control. GO has to hope for a big player like IBM or Apple to come out with a highly successful system based on PenPoint. That could take a long time — enough time for Windows 4 to catch up.