Windows RT vs. Windows 8 Could Burn Consumers 297
Nerval's Lobster writes "The Surface currently available for pre-order runs Windows RT, a version of the operating system designed to run on ARM architecture. Windows RT looks virtually identical to Windows 8, which, like previous versions of Windows, runs on the x86 architecture that dominates the laptop and desktop market. Microsoft's early marketing materials aren't exactly highlighting that differences between Windows RT and Windows 8 — and as a result, there's a high potential for unsuspecting consumers to end up burned when they buy a Windows RT tablet expecting the complete Windows experience. But Windows RT won't support legacy Windows applications — instead, users will need to hope and pray that developers port those applications to the Windows Store, the only venue for RT-supported apps. Over at The Verge, the intrepid Sean Hollister asked eight Microsoft Store representatives about the differences between Windows 8 and Windows RT, and received several confusing responses. 'To their credit, half of the representatives admitted that Windows RT wasn't as capable as Windows 8,' he wrote. 'The other half not so much. Moreover, those reps who did admit issues seemed dismissive of Windows RT as a whole.'"
I never expected my iPad to run OSX applications.. (Score:4, Insightful)
...and I didn't have to read a disclaimer from Apple stating "Will not run OSX applications"...
Re:I never expected my iPad to run OSX application (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps that because iOS really looks nothing like OSX despite having the foundation of it?
Re:I never expected my iPad to run OSX application (Score:4, Insightful)
The two have gotten a lot closer looking of late; but that's because they've been iPadding the hell out of what used to be an endurable desktop OS...
Re: (Score:3)
Agreed, I was horrified when people started talking about OSX and iOS merging - a sure sign of the apocalypse.
Re:I never expected my iPad to run OSX application (Score:5, Informative)
What is especially jarring is seeing all the tablet-esque window management misfeatures at play even as it has never been cheaper to have a couple of big monitors on your desk. In particular, the behavior where 'full-screen' on one application causes all your other monitors to blank to a grey background [apple.com] can only be Apple's way of giving the finger to their remaining pro users...
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re:I never expected my iPad to run OSX application (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I never expected my iPad to run OSX application (Score:5, Insightful)
I can see people possibly being confused by this, but these are the same people who are generally confused by everything involving choices in a computing environment.
The summary makes it sound like yet another conspiracy...
I have to disagree:
;)
1). Windows 8 and windows rt look identical, both with tiles and touchscreens
2). Both designed for tablets
3). Both released around the same time
windows rt devices are cheaper though, so when consumers go into a store and see two tablets sitting side by side that look identical running windows, they're gonna grab RT, take it home, and be furious when they can't install any windows software on it, only software designed for Windows RT will work. I see this as a epic fail for Microsoft, biggest fail since windows ME. I do not understand why Microsoft made two identical OSes for tablets, they would have been better focusing on windows 8
Only good thing though is these RT devices will quickly be sold at fire sale and maybe we can put Android on them
Re:I never expected my iPad to run OSX application (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you're wrong. I think people are going to buy the tablet and be satisfied with the software bumdled with it and what they can download off of the Windows Store. I think anyone concerned with legacy application support is going to know the difference between Windows RT and Windows 8. The lack of a DVD drive is going dissuade most people from even trying to load their legacy software. For the few people that do run into this issue, they can always bring their tablet back and upgrade to the Windows 8 version.
Re:I never expected my iPad to run OSX application (Score:5, Interesting)
People have been downloading software instead of installing it from DVDs for a long time now. I suspect that quite a few people will try to install Steam on it, for example.
Re: (Score:2)
It's debatable. I don't know many people expected to be able to run Microsoft Word on their Windows CE devices.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes they did, and it came pre-installed on some devices.
http://www.pocketpcfaq.com/faqs/PocketOfficeFeatures.htm [pocketpcfaq.com]
Re: (Score:3)
A nice Linux with KDE is what this hardware needs.
Re: (Score:2)
Windows RT runs on the ARM, not the x86. Older Windows applications just won't work on it without including emulation software of some sort, which would be slow and bulky.
The biggest problem with Windows and Intel architectures in general is this need to be backwards compatible, and it make sense at some point to cut the connections and say that the ARM version of Windows is only for ARM applications, leaving any emulators as optional add-ons.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
No, the summary correctly explains that this is a disaster waiting to happen for support. Windows has been Windows for the last 30 years because they've reasonably well managed compatibility from one version to the next, and usually several versions beyond that. Microsoft money doesn't work anymore, but I have stuff from the late 90's that works fine on regular windows 8.
Windows RT is a different animal entirely, and I hope it's not intended as a serious product but just as a bone being thrown to the ARM
Re:I never expected my iPad to run OSX application (Score:5, Insightful)
I never expected my iPad to run OSX applications
I can see people possibly being confused by this
Some percentage of users will definitely be confused by it. I do support for software sales of Windows-only software, it's clearly labelled Windows only, and yet a regular request is processing refunds for users who bought the software and then claim to be confused that it doesn't run on their iPad or iPhone or Mac. If people can't even tell the difference between Mac and Windows then they sure aren't going to grasp these relatively finer distinctions. If you're stupid you must suffer.
Re:I never expected my iPad to run OSX application (Score:5, Insightful)
...and I didn't have to read a disclaimer from Apple stating "Will not run OSX applications"...
And the Ipad didn't say 'OSX' on the front. This is being advertised as a Windows device, yet it won't run existing Windows programs.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That's the typical logic that a Microsoft fanbois would make that "I didn't realize I couldn't run iMac applications on my iPad - they both have 'i' in them - they must run the same apps..."
It's stupid whichever side uses the 'logic.'
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, but these are the type of people who get burned by anything technological ;) (as evidenced by them wanting you to put Exchange Server on their phones.)
Re:I never expected my iPad to run OSX application (Score:4, Informative)
There's a different scale here. Sure someone trying to install a standard windows program on a phone will fall down at any old technological hurdle. The two are designed completely different, look completely different, and interact completely different.
But ... RT vs Windows 8. They have the same interface (metro), they run on the same type of hardware (laptops / slates), they come with identical software pre-installed (internet explorer 10, email clients, etc).
It's really not a stretch to see that this is going to be a far larger problem then the usual "Oh my god why are you even trying to use technology" type of crowd.
Re: (Score:2)
But ... RT vs Windows 8. They have the same interface (metro), they run on the same type of hardware (laptops / slates), they come with identical software pre-installed (internet explorer 10, email clients, etc).
And both look completely different from Windows 7. I think this anchors expectations for Windows 8 to be "Can this even run my software?" instead of "This obviously must run my software, it's Windows!" This is still bad for Microsoft, because it might reduce sales of Laptops people think won't run the software they're used to on their laptop. But I think the supposed confusion between Windows 8 and Windows RT is going to prove to be overblown.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't think of anyone I know who would assume that Windows 8 won't run everything that Windows 7 runs.
I've been warning people away from Windows 8 (in any form) for the time being, until it becomes clear how big a mess this is going to be.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I never expected my iPad to run OSX application (Score:4, Insightful)
If people don't expect the Windows Tablet to run Windows applications, then why is MS going to be selling a version that does in January? Don't you see that MS is going to need to make a concerted effort to let users know that this is THE difference between these two products, if the don't want people to buy the Windows RT tablet expecting it to run their existing applications.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Windows 8 looks so different from Windows 7, especially on a tablet, that people (at least in my experience) don't automatically assume it will run regular Windows applications. I think this is going to bur
Re: (Score:3)
That's because Windows is being used as too broad of a marketing label. Their tablet versions should have had different names from the full sized operating systems. Ie, a Macintosh is seen by customers as a real computer. An iPad is seen by customers as a stripped down computing device with less CPU, RAM, and storage than a full computer, with a tablet basically being like a larger smart phone.
Maybe they're planning on full edition Windows 8 to be on a small tablet, but that's a separate problem of Micro
Re:I never expected my iPad to run OSX application (Score:5, Informative)
...and I didn't have to read a disclaimer from Apple stating "Will not run OSX applications"...
I had to crush the hopes and dreams of more than a few who didn't successfully draw that inference...
Also, that was called 'iPad' rather than "OSX AR on Apple iPad"...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Suppose Apple had two nearly-identically named products with nearly identical apparent functionality which couldn't run the same programs. Say, iPad 3 and iPad X. Look the same, appear to function the same, same product line name, just a different version to indicate there's some sort of difference. The iPad 3 runs everything that can run on iOS, but the iPad X runs only apps made just for the iPad X.
Then, and only then, would the comparison be fitting.
Re:I never expected my iPad to run OSX application (Score:5, Insightful)
A Mac has "Mac" in its name (Mac mini, MacBook, iMac, etc). Its operating system is called "OS X".
An iPad doesn't have "Mac" in its name. Its operating system is called "iOS".
Hardware and software both have different names, there's no confusion.
Windows RT has "Windows" in its name, just like "Windows 98", "Windows XP", "Windows Vista" or "Windows 7". The Windows OS had names with numbers, letters, words... it's not constant, so "Windows (something) = Windows" for most people. And Windows RT certainly won't be an exception.
Difference: They still call both Windows. (Score:5, Informative)
Macs Run OS X.
iPad Runs iOS.
x86 and ARM machines both run "Windows 8".
Here is a perfect example of this SNAFU:
http://www.futureshop.ca/en-CA/category/windows-tablets/31088.aspx?path=6d56ed26a8e2432d145864a8ee45cd37en01 [futureshop.ca]
This is the biggest Electronics retailer in Canada (does link work outside Canada?).
The First two tablets listed, both $599, Both look physically the same. Both have the exact same blue screen "Windows 8" logos on their screen.
There is absolutely no way that you can know by looking at any of the information at this level, that one of these tablets in x86 and will run legacy applications, and the other is ARM and won't.
If you go to each product page you can find in the fine print of specifications that one runs Intel, the other Tegra and one is Windows 8 RT. Which is incomprehensible nerd speak to most people.
It is that fact that they look the same, are marketed the same with the same graphical "Windows 8" is going to confuse almost everyone that isn't a hard core nerd.
Re:Difference: They still call both Windows. (Score:5, Informative)
x86 and ARM machines both run "Windows 8".
x86 runs Windows 8
ARM run Windows RT
And if you look at the tech specs, one is identified as using OS:
Windows RT, the other is identified using OS Windows 8.
Now that said, I agree 100% that most consumers won't catch that.
But I really think that in this case ***Futureshop*** is confusing customers, not Microsoft.
Those stock photos showing the Windows 8 logo were not likely provided by ASUS for the RT product. Reading the Asus product anouncement for the Vivo Tab, and Vivo Tab RT -- the Vivo tab talks about windows 8 experience all over the place. While the Vivo Tab RT announcement talks about windows RT and doesn't mention Windows 8 anywhere at all.
There is definitely going to be confusion, but Futureshop is the one making the mess here.
Not Microsoft, not even Asus.
Same problem at Newegg- Really a MS problem (Score:5, Insightful)
But I really think that in this case ***Futureshop*** is confusing customers, not Microsoft.
Those stock photos showing the Windows 8 logo were not likely provided by ASUS for the RT product. >
Really this is a Microsoft Problem because they named them too closely. They should have called WinRT something totally different, to avoid this mess, really anyone thinking about it should have been able to predict this.
If all the product specialists are the biggest electronic retailers in North America are confused and making mistakes, what chance does the average consumer have.
Essentially the same thing happening at Newegg:
http://www.newegg.com/Tablets-Accessories/Category/ID-164?Tpk=tablet [newegg.com]
Check the top of the page.
Win 8 Tablets!
Then they have a mix of ARM/x86 tablets all with the same graphics (this time Metro).
But it is still both kinds of tablets called Windows 8 and undifferentiated.
Re: (Score:2)
Really this is a Microsoft Problem because they named them too closely. They should have called WinRT something totally different, to avoid this mess, really anyone thinking about it should have been able to predict this.
They are not totally different at all.
Windows 8 is a super set of windows RT.
Windows 8 is windows RT + desktop mode.
Anything you buy for WinRT will also just work on Win8.
Its nothing like ios and osx.
If all the product specialists are the biggest electronic retailers in North America are co
Re: (Score:3)
They are not totally different at all.
Windows 8 is a super set of windows RT.
That they have some similarities that can lead to confusion is all the more reason to work that much harder at strong brand differentiation.
Because they differ in one highly important and critical way.
Only one of them actually runs what we know of today as "Windows Software".
That is about as huge a difference as it gets for a "Windows" operating system. I can't think of a more critical difference.
The ONLY reason I use Windows, is because it runs "Windows Software". If it doesn't run "Windows Software", the
Re: (Score:2)
But now that ship has sailed. We have Two versions of "Windows" launching on tablets at the same time, that look the same, but only one runs "Windows Software",
Does a non-technical person buying a tablet even care?
The ONLY reason I use Windows, is because it runs "Windows Software".
And you are not a non-technical person who is confused.
I agree there is some confusion. I agree Microsoft could have done better communicating the brand. I agree the retailers are REALLY spectacularly botching it. But I don't th
Re: (Score:2)
But now that ship has sailed. We have Two versions of "Windows" launching on tablets at the same time, that look the same, but only one runs "Windows Software",
Does a non-technical person buying a tablet even care?
Is there anything else they would care about? I can't think of anything more important than running your software that an OS has to do.
I remember the outcry when Vista was incompatible initially with a handful of applications. In this case nothing would run, if you end up with WinRT without the implications being clear.
Re: (Score:2)
> But I really think that in this case ***Futureshop***
> is confusing customers, not Microsoft.
Futureshop is just passing along Microsoft's mistake. As the subject of the original post says, it is still called Windows.
I have a program that will run in 8 out of these 9 editions of Windows. Quick, Joe Consumer, guess which one WON'T run your favorite app:
Windows 95
Windows NT
Windows 98
Windows ME
Windows 2000
Windows XP
Windows 7
Windows 8
Windows RT
Re: (Score:2)
I have a program that will run in 8 out of these 9 editions of Windows.
That's a nicely cherry picked list.
Why not include
Windows 3.11
Windows Embedded Handheld
Windows Embedded Compact 7
Windows Mobile 6
Windows Phone 7.0
Windows Phone 7.5
Windows XP 64-bit Edtion for Itanium Systems, version 2002
Windows Phone 8.0
Windows Embedded Automotive
And you included:
Windows NT
Is that the x86, MIPS, Alpha, or PowerPC edition?
And I'm not sure what -your- favorite App is, but on your list of 9 versions of Windows plus all th
Re: (Score:2)
Most people here are arguing that the Windows name will make them think they can run desktop apps on their tablet. I think the opposite will happen: Metro looks so different from classic Windows, and the form factor is so removed from a desktop/laptop, and Apple has conditioned people that tablets get apps from appstores, that I fell not many people will expect to be able to install their software on the machine, despite it being called "Windows." Especial
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Windows 8 RT
Incorrect. The product name is "Windows RT", not "Windows 8 RT". Microsoft never confuses the two terms (although resellers are doing so).
That said... Microsoft would be wise to get out in front of this. Allowing resellers to call their products "Windows 8 RT", or to display Windows 8 on an ARM tablet, is not responsible and will cause confusion even if Microsoft is clear in their own usage.
Re: (Score:2)
Plus consumers expect Windows === Windows. Even during the NT + 9x parallel Windows version paths (which were merged as of win2k, almost 13 years ago), the amount of software that would not run on both lines was for the most part not exposed to consumers.
The Win8/WinRT dichotomy will be baffling to anyone who isn't technically savvy enough to know there are different chip architectures, and retailers will find it difficult if not impossible to effectively explain the difference, if they even know it.
Re:Difference: They still call both Windows. (Score:4, Informative)
The Win8/WinRT dichotomy will be baffling to anyone who isn't technically savvy enough to know there are different chip architectures, and retailers will find it difficult if not impossible to effectively explain the difference, if they even know it.
Here's how to explain the difference for non-tech savvy people:
Windows RT has this new touch user interface called 'metro' that only runs apps you buy online from the microsoft app store. It doesn't run anything else. Its a lot like how an ipad works with itunes.
Windows 8 has everything Windows RT has, but it also has an extra tile called "Desktop Mode" where you can run software designed for desktop mode. It will also run software from previous versions of windows in "desktop mode".
Its not that baffling.
Re:I never expected my iPad to run OSX application (Score:5, Interesting)
Now how do we do this? Well, we start with a strong foundation: iPhone runs OSX. Now, why, why would we wanna run such a sophisticated operating system on a mobile device? Well, because it’s got everything we need. It’s got multi-tasking. It’s got the best networking. It already knows how to power manage. We’ve been doing this on mobile computers for years. It’s got awesome security. And the right apps.
Also on their product page:
“iPhone uses OS X, the world’s most advanced operating system. Which means you have access to the best-ever software on a handheld device”
They unequivocally stated that iPhone runs OS X, yet hardly anyone reasonably expected desktop OS X software to run on the iPhone. I argue that this is because iOS looks so different from OS X and that the form factor is so much different from a Desktop. Since then, Apple has trained people that on tablets, you get your software from Appstores. I think people will look at Windows tablets and have the same expectation, despite that it's called Windows. Again, how many people expected Windows Mobile or Windows Phone would run desktop Windows applications?
In fact, what I predict is that Microsoft will have the opposite problem: convincing people that Windows 8 on desktops will run desktop applications. You see that confusion here on Slashdot all the time.
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, what I predict is that Microsoft will have the opposite problem: convincing people that Windows 8 on desktops will run desktop applications. You see that confusion here on Slashdot all the time.
Exactly. RT launches first as 'the new windows'. People buy it, find it doesn't run their software - Windows 8 gets the same reputation, in much the same way as Vista's image was left tattered even after they had fixed most of the initial problems with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There should of been a warning that this one did not provide that.
Re: (Score:3)
That's because the things thta run OS X applications are called "Macs". Like a Mac Mini. iMac. Mac Pro. Macbook Pro. Macbook Air. And all combinations thereof . "Mac" is part of the name.
iPad and iPhone? There's no "Mac" in the name, so no expectation to run Mac apps. There's an expectation to run iPhone apps on iPad, and probably the other way around too (which doesn't work unless it's universal).
Hell, I bet ther
Re: (Score:2)
The confusion is with people that keep stating that it's "Windows 8 RT" It's not "Windows 8 RT", it's "Windows RT".
I don't think too many people thought "Windows CE" or "Windows Mobile" would run legacy applications.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple never used the Macintosh or MacOS branding in conjunction with the iPhone or iPad. In contrast, Microsoft insists on misleadingly using the same OS name – Windows – for both products.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, they have different OSes (MacOS vs iOS), a different UI (static icons vs a regular desktop), so you'd have to be really dumb to confuse them.
Both Windows 8 have essentially the same name, exactly the same UI... the difference is much less obvious. Especially since Windows has always existed in a plethora of compatible versions (Home, Pro, Entreprise, Ultimate, Media Center...) only the one and only RT flavor of Windows is incompatible with all those other versions.
Re: (Score:2)
I had to explain to some folks in the photography business when the original iPad was released that it would not run Adobe PhotoShop even though it was an computer made by Apple. I expect there will be some folks who will make the same mistake with the MS RT tablets.
Re: (Score:2)
The differences are:
1. Apple never marketed the IPad as running MacOS RT or anything resembling MacOS.
2. Apple doesn't market one tablet running MacOS and another tablet running iOS that look and operate the same but are incompatible.
A terrible mistake. (Score:5, Informative)
Microsoft is making a terrible mistake by not trying their absolute hardest to optimize the heck out of the Common Language Runtime for ARM. I don't think anyone would expect a tablet to be an acceptable desktop replacement machine - nobody thinks that of an iPad - but the fact they're not leveraging an existing architecture to bring application compatibility to the RT is going to cause major consumer headaches. No "native" apps would be a fine limitation, but they really should have the .NET CLR available for developers.
I occasionally chat with a few Microsoft SDEs who are directly involved in the development of native RT apps, and it usually goes something like this: "ARM is fucking terrible, it's weak and powerless!" "How come other platforms, including Linux, can run on ARM successfully?" "ARM isn't powerful enough to run Windows applications, that's what we mean. That's why we have to rewrite everything to be more highly optimized for these few Windows RT apps." "So, the reason Windows RT can't run Windows apps is because most Windows software is so bad, it wouldn't perform acceptably on something being run at its limits?" "Pretty much."
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I think the logic here is that it would be pointless to port the CLR when the majority of .NET applications have bindings to x86 native DLLs / modules anyway.
I'm not familiar with .net, But I thought the purpose of it was to be cross-platform?
Re: (Score:2)
And? You can still use native code and Win32 through P/Invoke which many apps do. It's no different than Java apps I've seen that have ties to Windows through tying their app to some Windows library they call through JNI.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not familiar with .net, But I thought the purpose of it was to be cross-platform?
I always felt the purpose of .Net was to give MS devs a managed language. Either way, the purpose of C++ was to be cross platform. But a lot of C++ code has some x86/x64 specific parts, making many C++ programs difficult to port. .Net programs aren't allowed to run is because they expect "normal" computer resources and thread scheduler. But WinRT isn't designed like that at all. There is a very unfair thread scheduler that really is trying to conserve energy. While I imagine the
The main reason why I think
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but when Microsoft says something's cross platform they mean it will work on various flavors of Windows x86.
Normally you hear "cross platform" and think "gee, it'll run on my ARM Linux box, my x86 FreeBSD box, my Solaris enterprise-grade server, and Windows" but you're thinking in the wrong way when it comes to MS's special definition of cross-platform.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the purpose was mainly rapid application development.
Re: (Score:2)
It is cross-platform. It'll run on Windows XP, Windows Vista, and Windows 8.
What other platforms are there?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:A terrible mistake. (Score:5, Informative)
1. .NET languages are JIT compiled not interpreted.
2. GTK and Qt don't work for all OSes.
Re: (Score:2)
GTK and Qt run on Windows, OS X , and Linux. That covers practically everyone.
Well except for the billion smartphones and tablets. GTK has no official port for iOS, Android, or Windows Phone 7/8. Qt only has unofficial, incomplete ports to Android and iOS and no Windows Phone 7/8 or WinRT support. Thosenare hardly "obscure platforms" and why would I bother with them if I have to roll my own? Porting either is nomtrivial matter.
Your comment about JIT compilation is also silly. You still build an application that you distribute and any smart installer checks dependencies and will insta
Re: (Score:2)
And on x86_64 and ARM devices when using the Micro Framework.
Re:A terrible mistake. (Score:4, Informative)
So was java. How many corporate apps in the office that require Java only work on Windows or IE 6/7? 90% of them.
In my experience it's more like 10% of them. And I'm not sure how IE fits into Java desktop apps.
Re: (Score:3)
ah the cross platform dream of .Net, run your application 32-bit and 64-bit Windows!
Re:A terrible mistake. (Score:4, Insightful)
Nope. Native code is extremely easy to call through P/Invoke. It's the .NET equivalent of Java's JNI.
Re:A terrible mistake. (Score:4, Insightful)
Nope. Native code is extremely easy to call through P/Invoke. It's the .NET equivalent of Java's JNI.
Except that Sun had the foresight to make JNI an error-prone pain in the ass.
Well, I'm not sure that it was exactly "foresight", but in hindsight it seems to have been the right choice. Most people avoid JNI like the plague, even when they aren't worried about cross-platform compatibility.
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming you can write your application with references to libraries only included in the vanilla
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing. You can use .NET on WinRT.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you underestimate Joe Sixpack.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't get it; I believe the Zune HD and Windows Phone had somewhat limited versions of the .NET CLR, and they were both ARM based. What is MS's problem here?
gp is not right. it's the lack of native(and filesystem access.. and lack of other types of access) that was hampering zunehd/winpho7 apps the most, not any "no .net" nonsense. it's the no native part (and gimped multitasking) which was forcing the gimped apps on wp7(leaving game devs to come up with solutions to cheat or gimp their games or just not porting them at all, there's a reason why android and ios have GTA III..).
Re: (Score:2)
I occasionally chat with a few Microsoft SDEs who are directly involved in the development of native RT apps, and it usually goes something like this: "ARM is fucking terrible, it's weak and powerless!" "How come other platforms, including Linux, can run on ARM successfully?" "ARM isn't powerful enough to run Windows applications, that's what we mean. That's why we have to rewrite everything to be more highly optimized for these few Windows RT apps." "So, the reason Windows RT can't run Windows apps is because most Windows software is so bad, it wouldn't perform acceptably on something being run at its limits?" "Pretty much."
Well, yeah, but haven't we known this for, like, decades? The only thing that hasn't absolutely crushed the Windows experience is that the hardware has somehow managed to keep up with the requirements of the OS. When the netbook phenomena started, Microsoft had a very difficult time playing in that space until the netbook was re-imagined as a low-ish end laptop. Even though the early netbooks ran Linux just fine.
Re:A terrible mistake. (Score:5, Interesting)
I suspect the main reason is even though you may have to get a stopwatch out to tell the difference on a desktop, CLR/.NET does not have native performance which will show when you try to run them on thin (as in mm) devices. Most significantly you probably need to fit twice as much RAM in the case, i would guess memory bandwidth and cache sizes also are not friendly to performance and it would cost users battery time as no one would use the low power APIs.
The other things i can think of is that they don't want rushed ports to Metro and maybe it was easier to start from scratch.
Re: (Score:2)
Well I'm one of those who's looking at an Acer W500 Tablet as a desktop replacement. Yes it'll handle my desktop needs with the exception of storage but with a NAS at home, why do I need more then enough capacity to handle a limited set of local files anyway? The nice thing is the AMD APU is powerful enough to actually run my primary game (Guildwars), thus it is quite capable of functioning as a desktop replacement for me. Hell I rarely use word anymore since I've got OneNote installed and it offers the fun
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I've noticed this before, and it's insane.
The .NET Framework and VB/C# in particular are a bit strange in that they have much better perceived performance on a desktop compared to Java, the closest equivalent, but actually have very poor performance. Java is something like 2x faster in benchmarks!
This is because unlike Java, Microsoft has a sane startup sequence for applications. The .NET framework shares DLLs, shares pre-JIT-ed uncompressed native code, etc... In contrast, Java lives in an isolated b
Re: (Score:2)
No "native" apps would be a fine limitation, but they really should have the .NET CLR available for developers.
I think my head just nearly asploded.
Are you serious? You can't build .NET apps with C# that run on both RT and Windows 7/8? That's... beyond stupid.
We all know it's perfectly possible to run interpreted bytecodes with a JIT compiler and get very acceptable performance on ARM... Android has been doing it for many years, on much slower processors than the current generation of ARM CPUs. In fact, there's basically no significant difference between Java running on Dalvik on Android and native binaries r
Re: (Score:3)
It contradicts their claims, because they're plainly wrong. Here [microsoft.com] is the official documentation on writing Windows Store apps - note the abundant mentions of C# and VB all over the page. Here [microsoft.com] is an article detailing the peculiarities of .NET in that environment.
Note that you still can't run a .NET (or any other kind) app that will run on 7, 8 and RT, which was your original requirement. That's because RT only runs Store apps, and 7 doesn't run Store apps at all. So you can get an app that supports 7 or 8 (an
Re: (Score:2)
What's crazy is that XP/Embedded was all that, a little bloaty sure, but nothing like RT. Unfortunately, it had a crap interface.
I think the real case is that Microsoft can only get one thing right at a time.
RT = ReTard (Score:2, Insightful)
According to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org], "The RT acronym does not officially stand for anything." I predict that people will quickly take RT to stand for "ReTard" when they realize that Windows RT fails to run Windows software.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought it stood for RISC Technology [wikipedia.org]...
At $499, 'switching' will be easy (Score:5, Interesting)
If this article is right and Windows 8 ends up confusing and thereby pissing off consumers, I think this will be a huge win for Apple and Android. When you plopped $1k-$2k for a computer (in the olden days :-) and then added several $50-$150 software packages, the cost to abandon that platform is significant. But when your expenditures are in the $500-$600 range, tablet and apps, it'll be a lot easier to put the tablet up on eBay and go buy an alternative.
And the associated risks for Microsoft, let's call it the "horns effect*," could be catastrophic. People will say, "I gave Microsoft a chance for this new item, they suck. I'm not throwing more money at them. Look at how much I've spent on Windows computers/applications over the last 10+ years! Fool me twice, shame on me!" This really is a 'bet-the-company' move by Ballmer & Co (and of course we have 12 years of history of Microsoft under Ballmer to project from...)
* opposite of the "halo effect"
It's a trap (Score:5, Interesting)
Windows RT is just there to make things difficult for Android table makers. The "consumers" that buy them are merely colateral damage.
Isn't it ironic ? (Score:2)
A lot of people will potentially hate Windows tablet because they thought with an OS that is also available on the desktop, that this also means they can run the same apps as on the desktop.
Instead of calling it "unified vision" they need to call it "unified shooting in your two feet" vision.
Yes there will be a lot of confusion when some tablets can run their apps and some don't. Most non t
Missing the Point (Score:2)
RT is what MS want Windows to become. The desktop is legacy and at some point it will be dropped (admitedly, likely to be many years in the future). Dropping legacy support is one of Apple's strengths so why shouldn't MS try the same approach? Sure, on Oct 26th the RT tablets are going to be a bit of a dissapointment, but that will change. RT is a powerful framework:
From http://www.winsupersite.com/blog/supersite-blog-39/windows8/winrt-replacing-win32-140605 [winsupersite.com]
"...And in the same vein of blowing past peoples'
Re: (Score:2)
RT is a powerful framework:
From http://www.winsupersite.com/blog/supersite-blog-39/windows8/winrt-replacing-win32-140605 [winsupersite.com]
"...And in the same vein of blowing past peoples' expectations, virtually no app could not be written as a WinRT app. Many are imagining very simple, HTML-like apps, and while I'm sure there will be plenty of those, you need to reset your expectations up. WinRT is amazingly full-featured and not constrained to goofy utilities and simple games. The next "Call of Duty" could be a WinRT app, complete with support for Edge UIs and Charms..."
It is the x86 tablets that are the stop-gap
With games rated over 15 banned from the app store, sandboxing that prevents simple things like IPC and restrictions against plugins or scripting... good luck getting a CoD type game, mate.
seriously? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Now just two versions of Windows is too confusing for consumers?!
Two incompatible versions.
OFFS (Score:2)
do people really expect a Pad to be the same as a PC? I know that that is an image that is showing up, keyboards, external touchpad etc, but a Tablet/Pad is just a machine that does the routine and fun things, not full-blown Office work.
Wait till the 8 zillion versions of 8 (Score:5, Funny)
8 home basic
8 home plus
8 professional
8 professional extreme
8 professional plus office
8 server
8 advanced server
8 professional server
8 data center server
8 mobile
8 home extreme basic plus limited
8 media
8 media server
8 home lightweight
8 professional with surface
8 media with surface
8 surface server
Re: (Score:3)
The more the waters are muddied about the differences between the two operating systems, the larger the potential launch volume.
So, If I've got what you're saying right, they want people to be confused... because it will make them more likely to buy both types?
And then you have a bunch of people out there who already own the product and are trying to make it work, giving additional motivation to vendors to port to it.
Huh? ^ Fails to parse.
It's genius, although the kind of genius you pour out of a bottle.
If that's what passes for genius these days, I'll stick to being completely batty, thankyouverymuch.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And I would submit that this is intentional. The more the waters are muddied about the differences between the two operating systems, the larger the potential launch volume. And then you have a bunch of people out there who already own the product and are trying to make it work, giving additional motivation to vendors to port to it.
The more likely result is a bunch of angry customers returning their Surface RT devices to the store after finding that they don't do what they thought they would.
Re: (Score:3)
And this is why the Metro push is an abuse of monopoly power, and should never have been permitted. Microsoft is trying to use their existing desktop monopoly to leverage extra market share in a different field (tablets and smartphones), using the new Metro API as a weapon, and degrading customer experience in the process. This should have been stopped by the FTC and European Union before it reached the point of release.
Re: (Score:2)
1) Windows RT devices are few and far between to begin with, most customers will be getting traditional x86 devices when they upgrade.
If it weren't for the hype about the Surface devices, I'd agree. I wonder how many will be returned because they can't run Borderlands 2 or whatever.
2) Most people don't use a lot of their Windows applications outside of Office and the browser, and the rest will be filled in with the Metro apps, so consumers will likely not be pissed off...yes, get this, most people aren't power users.
Depends entirely on the category of user. At home? Windows is big in the games market and the Surface can't run any of them. At work? It has no Outlook, no Active Directory support and ships with a version of Office you're prohibited from using in the office without buying upgrade licenses first.