"Unless it's done with a full-screen app — you touch an Android app tile in Windows 8.1, and the app shows in full-screen — I think it will be confusing to consumers," Moorhead said. "This will fly or flop based on how well the OEMs can hid the background machinery of Android from users."
Bajarin agreed, saying that the success or failure of Dual OS would be "dependent on the execution at the OEM level."
The two were split on how Intel supported the two operating systems and how OEMs handled Android and Windows on a single device. Bajarin was certain that Dual OS was based on emulation while Moorhead was adamant it was not, that instead it was virtualization-based.
But they agreed on the reasons why OEMs and Intel thought Dual OS was a bright idea.
"This gets to their fundamental problem with Windows 8, that it doesn't have enough apps," said Moorhead.
"This was driven by the OEMs, who believe there are still scenarios where Windows makes sense but that this will bring more apps to the Windows platform," echoed Bajarin. "The huge issue is that the Windows ecosystem is not developed, and OEMs are desperate to get more apps onto their devices."
Microsoft's Windows Store, the only outlet for "Modern," formerly known as "Metro," apps that run in the tile-based, touch-enabled user interface of the same name, has more than 140,000 apps according to MetroStore Scanner, but critics have continued to pan both the number and overall quality as insufficient.
"That pales in comparison to Android or iOS," Bajarin said. Apple's App Store, the distribution channel for iPhone and iPad apps, boasts more than 1 million, for example.
Neither Microsoft nor Google has publicly commented on Dual OS and the move by staunch partner Intel.
But Bajarin encouraged Microsoft to warm to the idea. "The Windows ecosystem on touch-based devices is far short of what's available on iOS," Bajarin said. "I think they have to embrace Android to save Windows."
Sign up for Computerworld eNewsletters.