Print 68 comment(s) - last by Belard.. on Apr 3 at 4:18 AM

  (Source: Focus Features)
"We didn't do the work [just to give up]" says Microsoft VP

A new report suggests that Windows RT, a struggling mobile-geared OS from Microsoft Corp. (MSFT), may not be dead quite yet.

I. Critics Pile on Windows RT

The signs certainly seemed to point in recent months to Microsoft bailing on Windows on ARM (WOA), laying the poorly selling Windows RT to rest.  DigiTimes reported that Microsoft was scrapping the ARM processor OS to refocus on the x86 development path, looking ahead towards this fall's Windows Blue.

International Data Corp. (IDC) tablet research director Tom Mainelli hopped onboard the hate training earlier this month, suggesting that Microsoft should ditch Windows RT, which he predicts to only have a 1.9% share of shipments, or 3.6M devices out of total of 190.4M for 2013.

Windows RT
Sources have claimed Microsoft is close to abandoning Windows RT. [Image Source: Microsoft]

Mr. Mainelli suggests the lack of legacy software support was one key factor to blame for Windows RT's poor performance, remarking, "People may not love Windows 8, but it's compatible with the software they've always run.  RT may look like Windows, but in fact it's not."

II. Manufacturers Bail Too

In January Samsung Electronics Company, Ltd.'s (KSC:005930) North American market PC and tablet SVP, Mike Abary attacked Microsoft's poor consumer education efforts, complaining to CNET:

There wasn't really a very clear positioning of what Windows RT meant in the marketplace, what it stood for relative to Windows 8, that was being done in an effective manner to the consumer. When we did some tests and studies on how we could go to market with a Windows RT device, we determined there was a lot of heavy lifting we still needed to do to educate the customer on what Windows RT was. And that heavy lifting was going to require pretty heavy investment. When we added those two things up, the investments necessary to educate the consumer on the difference between RT and Windows 8, plus the modest feedback that we got regarding how successful could this be at retail from our retail partners, we decided maybe we ought to wait.

He said that his company would not be shipping the Windows RT-powered Ativ Tab tablet to U.S. shores anytime soon, concluding, "We want to see how the market develops for RT.  It's not something we're shelving permanently. It's still a viable option for us in the future, but now might not be the right time."

Instead Samsung is selling an alternate Ativ tablet design, priced at $799 USD and powered by Intel Corp.'s (INTC) Atom processor.

Acer Inc. (TPE:2357) has also dismissed Windows RT, saying that ARM 32-bit processors are too weak to power a serious tablet or PC.  As with Samsung, Acer is instead selling more expensive x86-based Windows 8 alternative products.

And most recently Microsoft Surface Division chief Panos Panay, seemingly talked down about the Surface RT calling it "a tablet first", suggesting it was not a true PC like the Surface Pro.  The $499 USD Surface RT has sold a modest 1.1M units.  By contrast, in its month-plus on the market thus far, the more-expensive x86 Surface Pro has sold at a brisker pace, moving over 400K units, according to the IDC.

Lastly, Microsoft just announced that it would be lowering the Windows 8 tablet standards to allow 1024x768 pixel devices, a move which will likely lead to cheaper Windows 8 x86 tablets, potentially cannibalizing the already scant Windows RT sales.

III. Clinging On

But Windows RT appears to be hanging in there.  An unnamed source close to Microsoft told CNET that the suggestion of killing the OS was silly, as Windows 8 and Windows RT already share the same app store and share almost identical source codes, merely compiler-optimized for the particular target architecture.

And others a Microsoft continue to defend the OS more publicly, as well.  Corporate VP Michael Angiulo is quoted as saying:

[Supporting ARM] was a ton of work for us, and we didn't do the work and endure the disruption for any reason other than the fact that there's a strategy there that just gets stronger over time.

He points to ARM Holdings Plc (LON:ARM) partner chips like the Snapdragon 600/800 from Qualcomm Inc. (QCOM), which pack a 3G/4G wireless modem on their 28 nm die.  For cellular-equipped tablets, this grants them key power savings over Intel Corp.'s (INTC) current-generation 32 nm or 22 nm mobile chips, which lack an on-die modem.

Adreno inside
Microsoft says on-die modems give ARM tablets a key advantage [Image Source; Qualcomm]

So there you have it -- Windows RT is still alive -- for now -- although its sales look pretty dead in the water.

Sources: CNET [1], [2], DigiTimes, Microsoft

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Yes you did.
By Motoman on 3/29/2013 3:46:27 PM , Rating: 3
"We didn't do the work [just to give up]" says Microsoft VP

...if it sucks and no one wants it, then yes you did.

Hopefully the same revelation will come regarding the Metrosexual UI on Windows 8.

RE: Yes you did.
By GoodBytes on 3/29/13, Rating: -1
RE: Yes you did.
By WilcoD on 3/29/2013 5:37:22 PM , Rating: 3
Windows RT is already merged with Windows 8. That was the whole point, Windows CE used a separate code base which took extra effort to maintain. Now Windows Phone 8, Win RT and Windows 8 all use the same sources.

Note also current ARM CPUs are more than powerful enough to run Windows 8, for example Cortex-A15 beats Atom by a huge margin.

RE: Yes you did.
By althaz on 3/29/2013 8:51:04 PM , Rating: 3
For the last, you'd have to argue that Atom is able to run WIndows 8 acceptably, which, for me, it does not (although to be fair the GPU performance might be the problem, eg: there isn't any GPU performance).

RE: Yes you did.
By damianrobertjones on 3/30/2013 12:18:46 PM , Rating: 2
"Atom is able to run WIndows 8 acceptably"

- The Samsung 500t had no issues with Windows 8 so are you talking about the older single core Atom?

RE: Yes you did.
By RU482 on 3/30/2013 6:27:05 PM , Rating: 2
By "Atom is able to run Windows 8 acceptably" I assume you mean "One particular neutered model of Atom CPU is able to run Windows 8 acceptably"

RE: Yes you did.
By bradp on 3/29/2013 4:28:31 PM , Rating: 2
Try to use first before releasing your blind fanboi stupidity. Windows 8 or even RT is more flexible than any of your tablet toys. It has big potential as they keep releasing updates. In the future, you can create your content in RT (not just consume), or even join it in the enterprise. Apps will be getting better, and what is lacking will be supplied to you soon.

RE: Yes you did.
By BabelHuber on 3/30/2013 5:36:37 AM , Rating: 4
Why is Windows RT more flexible than Android?

Because you cannot sideload Apps, which Anroid aloows per default after setting an according lagin the settings?

Or because you cannot work as an Admin? Or because you cannot replace that 'Modern UI' with something else, unlike Android, where you have dozens of different launchers available?

Or because SD-cards are less flexibly handled than on Android?

Windows RT is as restricted as iOS, but lacks the Apps.

The only 'advantage' is MS Office. But I wouldn't create big office documents on a tablet anyways, a 10' keyboard is too small for this.

Hence I Would use my notebook for such tasks anyways. OTOH small changes on Office documents can also be done with Android.

My Asus TF700 is a much more flexible device than any Windows RT device. Windows RT is just too little, too late.

Additionally, MS has alienated its OEMs by releasing own hardware - just look at the announcements for new Android tablets and compare to with the announcements for Windows RT devices.

And finally the customers know this, they don't buy the few RT devices which are available.

Like WP8 and W8, Windows RT is already a failure in the market.

I'm looking forward to the sales numbers of Q1 2013, I would bet $1.000 that again MS will have a miniscule market share.

Currently there are only Android, iOS and 'others', and when i see the stupid product MS releases, it will last this way until MS gets its act togeter and relesases something that customers want.

RE: Yes you did.
By grissom on 3/31/2013 1:41:07 AM , Rating: 3
Who cares about OEM's, market share, if you remember the Surface was brought about to just light a fire under OEM's BS they call computers that looked more like two Frisbees hinged together. RT rules the roost when it comes to "tablets" though us users know it's a shame to call an RT a tablet. It's the future. As soon as the next reiteration of the same ole tablet with whatever pixilation, there still is no desktop, real office and real innovation.

RE: Yes you did.
By BabelHuber on 3/31/2013 4:44:26 AM , Rating: 1
Your rant does not provide any arguments,just hot air.

Windows RT is a restricted POS with no flexibility whatsoever, an almost useless office suite, lacks Apps and is rejected by both customers and OEMs alike.

It is a failure. If MS and its trolls continue to ignore reality, it will backfire big time.

If the current trend continues, Android's installed base will overtake the Window's installed base in ca. 6 months. Windows RT is simply not suited to change this outcome.

RE: Yes you did.
By inighthawki on 3/31/2013 5:00:30 AM , Rating: 3
What exactly makes the version of office included with Windows RT "useless"?

RE: Yes you did.
By BabelHuber on 3/31/2013 6:16:51 AM , Rating: 1
- Student edition (which 'work' do you want to do with this?)
- Restricted functionality (e.g. Macros is Excel)
- No Outlook

And finally, the form factor. I own an Asus TF700 Android tablet with keyboard.
It is a phantastic device when writing short texts like this one.
It also is very well suited for E-Mails.

But my 15" notebook is the device of choice for creating long Word documents or PowerPoint-presentations for meetings with customers.

A 10" screen with a small keyboard is just too little real estate for this - at least for me.

RE: Yes you did.
By inighthawki on 3/31/2013 3:23:11 PM , Rating: 3
I'm going to have to disagree with your definition of "useless," then. Also form factor has nothing to do with the office suite, a completely invalid argument point.

RE: Yes you did.
By BabelHuber on 3/31/2013 3:49:18 PM , Rating: 1
Have you tried to create a larger document on a 10" device? I have.

After trying this out, I kept taking my 15" notebook with me. This is a form factor suited for serious work, unlike 10".

Hence it is useless as full-fledge Office.

RE: Yes you did.
By inighthawki on 3/31/2013 4:00:50 PM , Rating: 2
But this is not a shortcoming with the office suite, or Windows RT. It is a shortcoming of a device in that form factor. You could have a desktop with an Ivy Bridge i7 and a GTX680 hooked up to a 1366x768 10" LCD panel running the best version of the office suite they sell, and it would produce the same results.

RE: Yes you did.
By BabelHuber on 4/1/2013 4:20:31 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, you are right. No 10" device is suited as complete replacement of a notebook - unless all you do is writing an occasional E-mail or letter, then it is OK.

So marketing Windows RT with MS office as THE advantage was a dumb move. Add the other dumb moves, like alienating OEMs and Windows game developers, and the result is a failure which tanks in the market.

RE: Yes you did.
By inighthawki on 4/1/2013 3:44:20 PM , Rating: 2
I think it depends on what you do with it. I can foresee editing large spreadsheets in excel to be difficult, but I've used Word on my RT device and I found it works fine for what I use it for. Until your brought it up I had not thought twice about shortcomings on the form factor, but I obviously was only considering my own requirements of course.

I think there is a lot they could improve in Windows RT and such, but you must admit that for the majority of people who will likely never use more than Word and OneNote, it's not that bad. You'd be surprised how many features the average consumer even knows about in Office. I'd bet that a large chunk of people associate "MS Office" with Word alone.

RE: Yes you did.
By nofumble62 on 4/2/2013 2:50:38 AM , Rating: 2
I thought Google don't even bother support RT. Without Google, it is pretty much useless. You can ready your office documents all you want.

RE: Yes you did.
By Manch on 3/31/2013 5:47:38 AM , Rating: 5
But I wouldn't create big office documents on a tablet anyways, a 10' keyboard is too small for this.

I would argue that a 10' keyboard is way too big! I would agree that a 10" keyboard is too small though! :D

RE: Yes you did.
By FaaR on 3/30/2013 6:51:23 AM , Rating: 2
You rage about "blind fanboi stupidity", yet you sound far more like a blind fanboi than anyone else in this discussion so far. If WinRT is so great like you say, then why is it crashing and burning so hard? It's not as if people don't know what you can do with windows, you know... It is the dominant desktop OS after all.

Could it be that what you say simply isn't true, and that's why it's not selling much? [darthvader]...Noooooooo![/darthvader] };)

RE: Yes you did.
By GTVic on 3/30/2013 7:17:36 PM , Rating: 4
This is a typical teenager, born in the 90's comment. If it doesn't excel right away, then call it garbage and dump on it in the most immature manner possible.

Your POV is irrelevant and your argument is pointless. Maybe you should watch the pilot episode of Seinfeld and then tell us how successful that show will become.

RE: Yes you did.
By 91TTZ on 4/1/2013 2:03:21 PM , Rating: 2
You sound like you're clueless about business.

Take a look at other product launches and see where their products were 6 months into the product life. It's completely obvious that the Surface's sales were slow from the beginning and never gained traction.

RE: Yes you did.
By Reclaimer77 on 3/29/13, Rating: 0
RE: Yes you did.
By LordSojar on 3/29/2013 5:38:36 PM , Rating: 2
The very fact that Microsoft even had to make this statement should be a huge wake up call to those few fans of Windows 8 and their claim that we're all just "haters"...

Oh yes, except for the one teensy fact you missed; this is about Windows RT, not Windows 8 as a whole.

Basically, a lot of people are haters who read 1 too many blogs on Windows 8 from people who can't handle change. Is Windows 8 flawless? Absolutely not. Is it abhorrently bad? Again, absolutely not. There is a lot right with Windows 8, and with some intelligent tweaks and refinements, it can be amazing.

RE: Yes you did.
By Reclaimer77 on 3/29/2013 5:43:43 PM , Rating: 1
I didn't miss anything. What makes you think that? I know this is about RT. What was your point?

Microsoft needs to go back to the drawing board on a variety of fronts, and that's just kinda sad.

RE: Yes you did.
By Spuke on 3/29/2013 7:04:22 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't miss anything. What makes you think that?
You did say Windows 8 in your post dude. Not RT.

RE: Yes you did.
By Reclaimer77 on 3/29/2013 7:07:17 PM , Rating: 1
That's more Microsoft's fault for not having decent names for these things. Half the people call it Windows 8 RT, and the other half Windows RT. And NOBODY knows what RT even means lol

RE: Yes you did.
By MrBungle123 on 3/29/2013 7:33:51 PM , Rating: 2
RT stands for "Run Time"

RE: Yes you did.
By Reclaimer77 on 3/29/2013 7:53:48 PM , Rating: 2
Yes I know but how does "Run Time" signify some type of tablet activity or mobile device to the average consumer? Which was my point!

RE: Yes you did.
By inighthawki on 3/29/2013 9:59:22 PM , Rating: 2
Actually it doesn't. Windows RT was the name of the Windows Runtime API used to develop apps, but Windows RT, referring to the version of the OS, does not.

I will give you that the naming is rather confusing, and for those that do not know better, there is plenty of room for confusion, especially around what RT can do versus the full version of Windows 8.

RE: Yes you did.
By Fritzr on 3/30/2013 1:13:23 AM , Rating: 3
Actually this was discussed in the tech news for quite a while.

The RT in WinRT is Runtime. WinRT is the Windows Run Time code that executes code compiled to use the WinRT execution libraries. WinRT has nothing to do with Windows 8 & Windows RT other than being the runtime library for programs compiled to WinRT bytecode.

The RT in Windows Surface RT stands for RT. That is it has no meaning other than being a type designator.

It is popular to try to find a hidden meaning, but Microsoft's official announcements were pretty clear ... RT means RT.

RE: Yes you did.
By FaaR on 3/30/2013 6:59:04 AM , Rating: 2
RT stands for RT, but it doesn't MEAN anything, which just confuses people because they expect it to mean something. It's an arbitrary designator without any underlying logic or message, which means people will go out of their way looking for something - anything - and sometimes make up their own.

It's simply a really really bad name. They should have called it Win8 portable edition (PE ;P), or something of that nature that would at least have made some sense.

RE: Yes you did.
By Reclaimer77 on 3/30/2013 1:45:40 PM , Rating: 1
Wow are you guys just trying to miss the point?

RT doesn't mean ANYTHING to the consumer, and "Run Time" doesn't align itself to any product. It's shockingly bad that Microsoft went forward with an OS name that so poorly identifies with anything tangible.

Stop trying to impress people with your trivial knowledge of acronyms and understand the context here, please.

It is popular to try to find a hidden meaning, but Microsoft's official announcements were pretty clear ... RT means RT.

/facepalm....siiigh, wow!

RE: Yes you did.
By inighthawki on 3/30/2013 4:33:47 PM , Rating: 3
Wow, the amount of arrogance that spews from your posts is amazing.

RE: Yes you did.
By Totally on 3/30/2013 8:25:41 PM , Rating: 2
The whole argument is silly and entertaining might as well question all their previous nomenclature what does "XP" mean? Doesn't "Vista" already mean Windows? What does the 'i' in iProduct event meant who cares it's just a name of a product.

RE: Yes you did.
By Reclaimer77 on 3/30/2013 10:09:18 PM , Rating: 2
God the IQ's are just flat-lining here...

Everyone KNEW what XP was. It was the Microsoft desktop OS. A better analogy would be if there was a Windows XP and a Windows XP RT on the market at the same time. One for desktop and one for tablets.

Just admit that "RT" is stupid and meaningless to the consumer and let's move on. What's the problem? You know I'm right, and it's not like I'm the only one who's saying this.

RE: Yes you did.
By Fritzr on 3/31/2013 1:43:17 AM , Rating: 2
XP actually did have a meaning it was the Windows eXPerience.
NT was the New Technology.
Vista has no deep meaning. It was simply a codename. Yes, in Latvian it is "hen", but that only means that in Latvia, Windows "hen" is the name of a Microsoft OS...nothing less, nothing more.

Each new generation of Windows is introduced with a new marketing campaign that includes whatever name Microsoft uses that year. There is no overall pattern to the naming of Windows OSes, though they tend to be (mostly) consistent within the families. Vista is an outlier in the WinX family as was ME in the 9x family.

RE: Yes you did.
By inighthawki on 3/31/2013 2:43:45 AM , Rating: 1
Who cares what RT stands for? Since when is it a requirement for letters in a product name to be an acronym?

Your posts are desperate at best, it's clear you're not speaking from knowledge. In one post you claim

Half the people call it Windows 8 RT, and the other half Windows RT. And NOBODY knows what RT even means lol

Then someone tells you it means runtime and you say

Yes I know but how does "Run Time" signify some type of tablet activity or mobile device to the average consumer? Which was my point!

but then when told it doesn't, you respond with

RT doesn't mean ANYTHING to the consumer, and "Run Time" doesn't align itself to any product. It's shockingly bad that Microsoft went forward with an OS name that so poorly identifies with anything tangible. Stop trying to impress people with your trivial knowledge of acronyms and understand the context here, please.

Which is it? Did you know that or not? Your posts are just blatantly full of sh*t, and it's clear you just have a strong stance against the OS, despite you probably never trying it.

In fact I strongly question your original post that it actually had to do anything to do with RT or just Windows 8. You can try to defend yourself all you want but it sounds far more like you backpedaled your way into a defense "That's what I meant" argument to not look like an idiot.

RE: Yes you did.
By 91TTZ on 4/1/2013 1:56:54 PM , Rating: 2
Basically, a lot of people are haters who read 1 too many blogs on Windows 8 from people who can't handle change.

You're parroting an old and beaten argument, claiming that anyone who hates Metro UI just hates change altogether. This isn't true.

I like positive change. I love that feeling when I get something new and it looks modern, works great, and improves usability. I'm a bit of an Apple hater but I loved the iPhone. It was a really good execution on a really good design.

Unfortunately Windows 8 isn't positive change. Windows 8 is an example where designers went out of their way to be different without thinking it through properly. Change for the sake of change isn't improvement, it's usually regression. They made changes to things that didn't improve usability at all. You now have to go out of your way to perform common tasks. To make matters worse, you need to spend time to learn the new way to do common things, and the new way seems to be require more effort than the old way.

RE: Yes you did.
By Belard on 4/3/2013 4:18:51 AM , Rating: 2
You nailed it on the head. If win8 worked as it should have and their mobile OS was done right... Many people wouldn't be continuing to go with android and iOS.

RE: Yes you did.
By Flunk on 3/29/13, Rating: -1
RE: Yes you did.
By delphinus100 on 3/30/2013 12:25:17 AM , Rating: 3
Why is it that no one can explain why they like the Start Menu?

Did you ever ask?

"It's because it's lousy and takes too many clicks to do anything. "

I don't usually start programs from there (As far as I'm concerned, that's what desktop icons are for). But I often need it for some specific Windows function. That need doesn't disappear, because the Start Menu did.

However, most of the time, I don't go to the Start Menu the moment the computer finishes booting up. (again, that's what icons are for). So, why would I want to unavoidably be presented with (or be dragged back to) the so-called replacement for the Start Menu every time I start Windows?

RE: Yes you did.
By FaaR on 3/30/2013 7:06:38 AM , Rating: 2
Why is it that no one can explain why they like the Start Menu?

Why are you so fond of leading questions, is it because you get to implicitly answer it with whatever suits your purpose through the phrasing of said question? ;)

I don't know of anyone who actually either likes OR dislikes the start menu. It fulfils its purpose in a decent enough manner that is consistent with the rest of the windows user interface (which can't be said about the tile shit introduced in win8), and also without filling your entire screen and blocking out all the content shown on it (again, unlike the shit we got in win8.)

You're a microsoft apologist who refuse to see reason, and your opinions can therefore be wholly discounted. Win8 sells poorly because it's BAD, not because people are too stupid to realize its greatness. End of story.

RE: Yes you did.
By Motoman on 3/30/2013 10:07:56 AM , Rating: 2
Why is it that abject morons like you ignore the fact that non-idiots have explained millions of times over why the Start menu/normal desktop is infinitely better than the Fisher-Price Metrosexual UI?

GTFO. You have no brain.

RE: Yes you did.
By sadsteve on 3/30/2013 10:18:24 PM , Rating: 1
Hierarchy! That's the what's missing from the WinRT 'Start Page' that is present on the 'Start Menu'. I always built a hierarchy on the 'Start Menu', a folder for 'programing languages', a folder for 'file utilities', etc. When you have tons of programs installed, having a hierarchy makes it much easier for you to find the program you want. Give me a hierarchy on the 'Start Page' and I can forgo having the 'Start Menu'

RE: Yes you did.
By DrizztVD on 3/30/2013 5:00:07 PM , Rating: 2
The reason Microsoft has to stick with RT is that they absolutely need an ARM-based platform in the market. If they only push the Intel x86-64 instruction set, they're basically setting up a really strong 'monopoly' which may allow Intel to destroy ARM in the long run. The only way that they can prevent ARM pointing anti-competitive authorities in their direction (assuming the Windows-Intel tablets push ARM out), is by allowing a fair chance for Windows ARM to become a competitor for Windows x86-64. It really has very little to do with Microsoft trying to please customers at this point. It's about pleasing producers (ARM-alliance) for the time being.

I really like the fact that MS aren't afraid of the H8rs and are willing to push innovation. Now I'm not necessarily defending the Metro UI, but the only thing worse than too much innovation is no innovation. I'd be willing to see what they can make of their new products, it's too early to tell yet.

RE: Yes you did.
By 91TTZ on 4/1/2013 1:28:12 PM , Rating: 1
I really like the fact that MS aren't afraid of the H8rs and are willing to push innovation. Now I'm not necessarily defending the Metro UI, but the only thing worse than too much innovation is no innovation.

I don't really think that Microsoft is innovating. Historically they've only copied other companies once they did the innovating. Microsoft doesn't know how to innovate. They know how to change things, but not all change is innovation. Some change is regression.

RE: Yes you did.
By ICBM on 3/31/2013 10:11:27 PM , Rating: 2
I don't understand the hate. Everyone knew RT would not be compatible with legacy software. However we still get all the regular Windows apps. For a tablet why not RT? I browse the web on mine, watch movies, and can plug in a monitor, keybpard and mouse and do work? Metro is great with a touch screen. Not seeing the problem other than terrible marketing.

RE: Yes you did.
By Aloonatic on 4/1/2013 7:48:08 AM , Rating: 2
I have never tried RT, and don't really intend to.

With regards to the Metro UI, I see this as a transition stage, or at least, that is what would make sense to me.

It would make sense to have that kind of UI in the home, for tablets, touch screen laptops and PCs, and for HTPCs too, hooked up to TVs, which I think is what MS have realised. The days of the PC in the home mostly being on a desk in the study/home office are long gone, and while the start menu is good for productivity in the office (hoe or at work) home users, kids and even oldies expect something different now and Ms are easing everyone over.

Would be nice to have the start button choice but then, maybe, if they don't force through change, people won't adopt the new interface at all?

Public Beta
By OnyxNite on 3/29/2013 4:50:51 PM , Rating: 2
Microsoft is just using Windows RT to test their ARM port of Windows. The real goal here is to work out all kinks in the port so they have a rock solid foundation when the 64bit ARM CPUs hit the market next year. 64bit ARM is going to be a player in data centers and Microsoft will want to have a Server OS ready. As for the Metro UI I'm sure it will be tweaked but it's important for Microsoft to have a .Net based framework in place so both ARM Windows and x86 Windows can share the same apps. The apps will be .Net MSIL in the store that everyone can download and they'll compile to native code on each device (32bit or 64bit, ARM or x86.) Microsoft is in for the long game, they may not be faring well now but they are positioning themselves for the real battle in 2014/2015.

RE: Public Beta
By inighthawki on 3/29/2013 10:02:23 PM , Rating: 2
The store apps are not limited to .NET. You can use native C++ directly.

RE: Public Beta
By Jim Vanus on 3/30/2013 12:00:06 PM , Rating: 2
This makes sense. It makes no sense for a Microsoft to hitch its wagon to ONE chip maker (Intel).

Microsoft has already followed java in insulating its programming languages from the computing hardware with the .NET CLR.

Now that Microsoft has an operating system (RT) on a non-Intel platform, it looks like it will take further advantage of its .NET framework.

RE: Public Beta
By 91TTZ on 4/1/2013 2:08:37 PM , Rating: 3
64bit ARM is going to be a player in data centers and Microsoft will want to have a Server OS ready

Why do you think that 64 bit ARM is going to be a player in data centers?

I work in a data center and we have thousands and thousands of servers here. We have barely any RISC servers. Mostly old SUN machines.

Almost all the newer servers are x86 compatible. We do this because we run VMware ESXi on them and most customers have Windows VMs. If you have an x86 server you can run Linux or Windows, but if you had an ARM server you could only run operating systems that support ARM.

Remember the future by looking at the past
By FXi on 3/30/2013 12:35:12 PM , Rating: 2
People just don't "get it". RT will get a LOT better as the hardware improves. that takes a year or two. EVERY time MS introduces a new software people complain about speed, about how it doesn't work so well on x,y and z performance measures. A year or two later and a few hardware cycles and everyone suddenly can't even remember what the complaints were all about. MS is legitimizing ARM. That's the key. This is the first gen. That is also key. It is simply going to get faster and more capable from here. RT is good now. It becomes fast and super good in a year or two. Think "weeks" without needing a recharge.

By Belard on 4/3/2013 4:11:02 AM , Rating: 2
Android and iOS devices have about a 4-5 year head start.
If MS was setting the world on fire with win8/RT, we would notice. When the galaxy 4 ships in a few weeks, it'll out sell wp8 devices in a few days.

By Netscorer on 3/29/2013 6:02:20 PM , Rating: 2
The whole point for people buying Windows 8 devices is backwards compatibility. RT did not give it, except for custom-compiled MS Office. The whole premise of providing better battery life over Intel CPUs was dead the moment Clover Trail Atom from Intel was released less then two months after Windows 8 went live. Yes, Atom is not a perfect CPU (especially the abysmal Graphics chip Intel chose to put in it), but it has one crucial advantage over ARM chips - it has x86 based design. My HP Envy X2 runs anything I can throw at it except demanding games. I am not limited by Windows 8 Store which, even full 6 months after launching still looks pretty bare born to me.
With Intel gearing for Bay Trail Atom release this fall with quad-core design, support for mSATA SSD, USB3 and Intel HD graphics, any limitation of the current generation of Atom devices would be gone as any reason to buy anything less then full Windows 8 device.

Just open the OS for software developers
By ET on 3/30/2013 1:21:24 AM , Rating: 2
Windows RT makes a lot of sense. ARM has a large CPU presence and it doesn't look like this is going anywhere. Being able to address this space is a good thing for Microsoft.

The main I see with Windows RT is that it doesn't allow applications outside the app store. The major strength of Windows is how easy it is for developers to develop and offer software for it, and the large selection of such software available for users.

If Windows RT could even have just offered general .NET compatibility, that would have been a start. It would have made Windows RT more attractive for users, allowing Paint .NET and other such software to run out of the box, and even for businesses which might use custom .NET software.

Native would of course be even better. Being able to just select an ARM build in Visual Studio to create a native Windows RT version would have pushed a lot of software towards the platform.

By flyingpants1 on 3/30/2013 8:04:05 AM , Rating: 2
GM had it right when they recently said they will make a 100-mile EV and a 200-mile EV, see which one sells better, and then go from there.

Microsoft made a $500 iPad competitor and a $1000 Macbook Air competitor and.. well.. neither really sold but RT is definitely the weaker of the two.

What exactly do they think they're going to do with RT? Can we just pretend this product doesn't exist?

The Haswell convertibles might be cool and all, but they're expensive, and that makes them extremely niche products. For $1200 I can get a 12" convertible x86 tablet/ultrabook.. or, TWO $475 11.6" Asus ultrabooks, and $269 for a 9" kindle fire HD . The only reason I'd get a Surface Pro or x86 convertible is if I needed it for something work-related, or if I had a ton of disposable income. I can't wait until these things are cheaper.

Microsoft's mindset is like "Look, now everyone can just use these now instead of computers!" This isn't how you do that.

By bug77 on 3/30/2013 7:49:30 PM , Rating: 2
If software for Windows was open source, people would have ported important apps to Windows RT by now (since the original creators don't seem to bother). But since this isn't the case, users just steer clear instead.

Another bashing thread...
By nav87 on 4/1/2013 10:31:58 AM , Rating: 2
I own an ipad, asus eepad and surface RT. So far the most SATISFYING (NOT feature rich) tablet is surface RT.
Everything is clean and simple starting from opening an app, multitasking to closing an app.
I may agree with you if you are bashing becasuse its $500 and lack of apps (its catching up), but other that there is nothing wrong with surface RT.

Windows RT?
By Integral9 on 4/1/2013 11:59:26 AM , Rating: 2
Is that the sport version that comes with a V8?

Strong HW...
By Ramstark on 4/1/2013 12:36:07 PM , Rating: 2
People hating on WinRT are just missing the point, what MS is referring to when they say "all that work..." is not only the porting of Windows for ARM architecture, is the process of understanding and adapting to new hardware specifications. Tat is a HUGE work for anyone, sadly, not all understand this, yes, is a work in progress, and yes legacy software will take a long time to be ported, but who knows, maybe one day that architecture will beat out everything else and be THE market, so Windows will be ready, that is the philosophy behind this...

Microsoft missed the boat.
By 91TTZ on 4/1/2013 1:47:41 PM , Rating: 2
As I've said from the very beginning, Microsoft's Surface is DOA.

First of all, customers are giving a loud and clear signal that they DO NOT like the Metro interface. While artsy people might think it's nice, customers seem to avoid anything using it. They're avoiding Windows Phone, they're avoiding Surface, and they're avoiding Windows 8. You can try to spin it all you want, but the simple fact is that it's not selling well. You can't say that people are afraid of change because when the iPhone and iPad came out they were different, but people loved them and they sold like crazy.

Another problem is that Microsoft is late to the party. The Surface may have been a contender in 2010, but it's 2013 now. The Surface has a similar screen resolution as the original iPad. I played with a surface and it's very noticeable. A non-technical customer might not know what screen resolution is but they'll notice that it looks cheaper or grainier than the newer iPads it competes with.

In the end, the Surface was doomed. It's running hardware similar to other tablets from 2 years ago, it's bridled to an operating system that isn't well received, the app selection is very limited, and it's selling at the same price point as established market leaders. What did they think was going to happen?

Windows 8
By richough3 on 4/1/2013 2:03:56 PM , Rating: 2
I think if the RT tablets can get down in power usage more, they could become more popular as people move to Windows 8. With the ability to run your apps on all your Windows devices, people would opt to get an RT tablet over a Pro or even take an RT despite having a Pro to reduce loss risk.

Android is doing it pretty well with Smartphones and the HDMI sticks, but they need to have Android OS for the desktop, unless Chrome OS is intended to brigde that gap. But, then again, I can't install it on any desktop I want, so it's about useless to me.

lol. brokeback mountain!
By zodiacfml on 3/30/2013 1:21:44 AM , Rating: 1
for even savvy users, it's difficult to see the value of Windows RT. it just competes to everything else such as OIS, Android, and Windows x86.

its overpriced
By OBLAMA2009 on 3/30/13, Rating: -1
RE: its overpriced
By flyingpants1 on 3/30/13, Rating: 0
RE: its overpriced
By fteoath64 on 3/30/2013 7:51:28 AM , Rating: 2
You are right on!. MS did not see the fact that it cannot compete head-on with IOS and Android on the ARM space. In Windows RT, it was a commendable effort but not enough, it needs to encompass ALL the weaknesses of the competition yet offer openness and flexibility for it to scale forward. As such, pricing RT tablets at such high prices was not the way to compete. They lost on both price and functionality so cannot get anywhere. Users are getting very savvy these days having had a lot of IOS and Android experience. MS cannot take that away but can substitute that for a better or different functionality that can achieve what the users wants. It is good functionality and openess of the platform. Hence, RT builds should be made for Android tablets and even Apple iPads (if MS dared!!!). But that showed openness in RT. Also lots of PRO features DELETED from RT is a bad thing. (They are trying to imitate Apple's stupid habit. Not good.) The market shows that HTC with their imitation of Apple does not match Samsung's match and extend model where, it does more even if you might not want it then. But later you will come to enjoy those other features. If it is limited, you live without until such time as an Update gives it or NOT!.

"Mac OS X is like living in a farmhouse in the country with no locks, and Windows is living in a house with bars on the windows in the bad part of town." -- Charlie Miller

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki