Now That It's Here, Is There a Place For Windows RT? 287
concealment sends this quote from Ars:
"The argument back then was this: Windows on ARM would mean discarding the thing that makes Windows entrenched and important: Windows applications. Tablets need all-new applications, and if you're going to run all-new applications then you don't really need Windows. ... In the time it has taken Microsoft to bring Windows on ARM to market, ARM's once overwhelming battery life advantage has been erased. The ARM CPUs may still have a slight power use edge, but the difference will typically be dwarfed by the power consumption of the screen. The Intel processors, in turn, bring CPU performance that is probably best in class (or close to it), and most importantly of all the ability to run the full version of Windows 8 and existing Windows applications. The hardware could look identical to the user, but if it has Intel inside, the user experience will be quite different. ... With these constraints and limitations, it's hard to see who exactly Windows RT is for. I acknowledge that there are certainly some users who will be content to use the browser, mail app, and perhaps type the occasional letter in Word or balance their checkbook in Excel: people for whom the Windows Store's current gaps do not matter. But I think a much wider selection of users will be ill-served by Windows RT."
Windows 8 (Score:5, Insightful)
As a tablet OS, Windows 8 is actually pretty nice. It's just that it's being crammed down our throats outside of tablets that makes it a PITA.
As for RT vs. x86, I'd lean toward x86 unless there's a major price advantage to ARM. The Clovertrail chip looks to have good performance and battery life, so there's no massive technological reason to pick one over the other. Application compatibility is a nice win for x86 BUT.. the truth is you'll likely not want to run desktop applications on a tablet anyway.
I think it is aimed at businesses and academia (Score:2, Insightful)
It has an active surface and digitizer, and it runs MS Office, which puts it light years ahead of the iPad in terms of productivity. Plus, it is an MS OS, which means that it probably comes with a lot of tools for IT managers to make it easier to deploy within an organization.
Sure, android might be better for nerds who want to hack their OS and the iOS might be better for the average Joe who wants to surf the web, but Windows RT and the MS Surface offer a much better choice than the iPad for corporations and people in academia. The superior keyboard dock, One Note, and Active digitizer put it light years ahead of the iPad for people who want to use it for note-taking.
Oh do shut up (Score:4, Insightful)
Another in the seemingly endless torrent of stories about how Windows RT is imminently about to fail. Get back to me after xmas at the earliest. It is too soon too tell, all we know now is that a bunch of big name manufacturers are at least willing to give it a try.
Re:Windows 8 (Score:5, Insightful)
Hint: there is.
Re:I remember (Score:4, Insightful)
I remember Windows NT for Alpha.... Yeah, the DEC Alpha.
Win 8 RT (Score:5, Insightful)
For me it's a non starter because you can't run existing Windows applications on it. Microsoft delivers a scaled down version of Office on it but it doesn't include Outlook. Apparently there is some sort of other email client on it. Why would I buy one of these things if I have to go out and buy new software for it? If I'm going to do that I might as well get an iPad or Android tablet. Those two also have a much, much bigger selection of titles in their respective app stores compared to MicroSoft.
I don't understand why the RT was released before the x86 model since RT seems to have a much more limited audience. Maybe there were some manufacturing delays with the x86 model? If I were going to buy one of the Surface tablets (and I'm not) I would go for the x86 model.
Re:Windows 8 (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Win 8 RT (Score:4, Insightful)
My guess is to push the adoption of formerly-Metro. Microsoft gets a platform out there that only supports that API (and only their store) and you force developers to start using it. Then when Windows 8 is released and x86 tablets come out they can simply release builds for it and go. There's no end-run to be had by simply using Win32.
Microsoft is really, really aching to get their own lock-in centric walled garden going, and Windows RT is the only way they can do it without getting strung up by every regulatory agency on both sides of the Atlantic.
Re:It's too bad tablets are pretty much useless. (Score:4, Insightful)
As you said, the tablet is a niche device, but I don't think it's entirely a fad. Sure, $600+ tablets are a fad, but the lower end tablets (such as my own Nook Color) fill a nice gap where my smartphone isn't capable enough, but my laptop is overkill. It has replaced my laptop for day or weekend trips when I don't plan on doing more than some web browsing and typing emails. The $150-$300 is a nice price point for tablets... much more than that and you might as well just get a laptop.
Re:The Magic 8 ball says ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's be specific about it. The place for Windows RT is to occupy the void formerly filled by Windows CE, with similar success. A Windows that isn't really Windows. Just the thing to irritate the same sheeple who once raised Microsoft up to the dizzying heights of world's most valuable company.
Just a historical note apropo to nothing in particular: when Alaric I marched into Rome to sack it in 410 AD, much of the city had already reverted to swampland. The aquaducts had long since silted up and the sewers weren't working. What Romans remained were living in squalor. So much for former glory.
Re:I think it is aimed at businesses and academia (Score:5, Insightful)
But my netbook is still far more functional than a tablet or a phone. For what I use those devices for, I don't actually need to do much in the way of actual office app work. In fact, even a netbook is too cramped for that, which is why I still have my PC and my notebook, because they have full sized keyboards and bigger displays (the latter is absolutely key to spreadsheets, many of the ones I have I normally work with on dual monitors).
I'll be honest. If my tablet or phone can just display the powerpoint presentation or Word document, that's good enough for me. I cannot imagine anyone seriously want to use a tablet as some sort of out-of-office workhorse. For a touch typist like myself, I doubt I can get much beyond 20-30WPM with considerable errors on a touch screen. A real keyboard, even a crappy neo-chiclet keyboard, is infinitely superior.
Its niche (Score:5, Insightful)
Windows RT will be right at home with people who have, until now, been okay with the fact that their Android and iOS tablets are not running a desktop class operating system. They just want the basic web and multimedia functionality.
The bigger question is this: How will Microsoft educate consumers about the difference between RT and 8; ARM and x86?
Windows RT for Kiosk, POS, Control systems? (Score:5, Insightful)
The answer is NO (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Short answer, I hope not. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Win 8 RT (Score:4, Insightful)
I think that the common factor behind the long string of failures in the pre-iPad tablets was the appropriateness of the software. Simply throwing PC software on it with some bigger buttons didnâ(TM)t work very well. They were awkward to use, and were quickly binned as irrelevant.
While Windows 8, itself, is said to be better presented on tablets, that doesnâ(TM)t mean that off the shelf PC software is. The software will require a lot more of a rework to be usable than the rework required for an ARM port.
RT == SecureBoot (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft requires all ARM devices implement SecureBoot with no way to turn it off. So, no, I have no place for RT.
Re:Windows 8 (Score:5, Insightful)
The only way that future windows applications will work on both ARM and x86 is if people start developing for that now. They need just enough marketshare to warrant the added development time* for developers to make both an ARM and x86 version so that windows 9 or windows 10 on both will actually be appealing
No. You see, C# uses a virtual machine. It's MS's version of Java. That's their strategy for cross platform. Thats how XNA code runs on my PC and on the XBox without change. They call it "Managed Code" -- Bytecode in a Virtual Machine. Hint: Android uses the Java language, and Davlik VM for cross platform.
MSVC is not what developers really need to be using to ensure future relevance. OSs are becoming Irrelevant (actually have been for a long time). We developers only care about getting our software running on as much hardware as people want it too. There's no reason at all to limit our marketshare needlessly.
With an entrenched code base tied to a proprietary compiler suite you're at the OS vendor's mercy. What's smart is to use a cross platform framework like Qt, GTK, or another OS abstraction layer and compiler toolchain, for any new projects. A minimal OS abstraction can be created in a weekend (I know because that's how long it took me to make my own GLUT replacement)... In this way I don't have to do ANY extra work to get code additions to compile for x86, x64, ARM, PPC on GNU/Windows, GNU/Linux, GNU/OSX, etc.
I "git pull & make" and I'm done "porting" from any supported platform to another -- And this is for 3D Game Code (programs notorious for being hard to port). For any other programs it should be a no brainer. Cross platform toochain or bust. Ah but C# really only works well on Windows, so MS is pushing that hard -- Native compiled code instead of MS byte-code means they can't be your exclusive platform as easily.
VMs are OK, but they're slow for things that actually need performance of running on the metal. What we need is a cross platform object code format that the OSs then link into binaries at install time... (Gee, someone ought to make such a compiler / OS) Since we don't have such a system the next best thing is either a VM with JIT compiling, or building binaries for each target platform.
I gave up trying to create code that I could compile with all the popular toolchains: MS/Windows and LLVM/OSX & BSD as well as GNU/Linux. I could have gone with LLVM over GCC, but I'm more familiar with GAS, so I picked a GNU based userland & toolchain. An MS compiler wasn't even on the table -- They have no cross platform OS agnostic compiler (publicly) available. A brand new processor can come out tomorrow, say, a 48 core AMD 128 bit processor with a totally new instruction set: LEG. As soon as it runs GCC (read: Linux) all of my code can run on it.
W8? An OS? ... OS?! ... Screw OSs. They're just the platform you use to get your software on. Your OS choice shouldn't affect what software you can run -- We solved that problem in the 70s, now it's time to actually start using the damn solution already. Not servicing market segments due to compiler choices is like throwing away perfectly good money.
Re:Windows 8 (Score:3, Insightful)
Because they've not yet become irrelevant. The OP sounds like a bit of an evangelist, and wants you think what should - and is happening - has happened. It hasn't, but he's sort of right. The dinosaur OSes have had their day - people are as happy - sorry, happer - using a decent mobile OS to access their apps/data, than the older OSes. Why can I sent a document from one app on my phone to another app/person by sharing via a button press or two, whereas on my desktop OS I have to try and download it , poke around trying to find it on my file system somewhere (good luck with that if you're not technical), then upload it again into my email system (duh - of course you transfer files using email - what else would you do?), and email it somewhere else. 1970's crap. It's time to start over.