Looks like Windows 8 RT has failed

heatlesssun said:
Wow, you just keep digging.
Click to expand...

Microsoft is the one who carved the path of a 50,000 year old glacier. You and I, we're just standing in the gaping ravine amongst the rocks and rubble left behind.

As my original point was and will continue stand from both a professional and a personal stance. Microsoft has a long history of "backwards comparability" and I think that all of us think this is great but some of us are willing to let go sort of.

Windows Metro IS not the technological reason to let backwards comparability go by any means. Because barring your precious games, which everybody knows is a major driving force behind all businesses, Windows Metro's API can easily be rivaled by Javascript + JQuery + plugins. And the latter works on all platforms not the smallest portion of Microsoft's future platform.

Microsoft needed to give a damn good compelling reason to build applications that run on 7% of the desktops and 1% of the tablets and convince developers that it was worth to push IT to get "Windows 8".

Windows Metro is actually more the exact opposite.
 
Just as a reminder, you're talking to a person who believes that JavaScript is a native programming language.
 
Fort_Major said:
Microsoft is the one who carved the path of a 50,000 year old glacier. You and I, we're just standing in the gaping ravine amongst the rocks and rubble left behind.
Click to expand...

Again, if by that 50,000 year old glacier you mean COM ok. COM just happens to be the basis of some of the most successful computer software ever built. People around here are always clamoring against change for change's sake which is a valid point. Why not continue to use successful and proven technology if it can still meat the requirements?

Fort_Major said:
As my original point was and will continue stand from both a professional and a personal stance. Microsoft has a long history of "backwards comparability" and I think that all of us think this is great but some of us are willing to let go sort of.
Click to expand...

Really? Isn't one of the big reasons why people are saying that Windows RT is a failure is because it can't run x86 software?

Fort_Major said:
Windows Metro IS not the technological reason to let backwards comparability go by any means. Because barring your precious games, which everybody knows is a major driving force behind all businesses, Windows Metro's API can easily be rivaled by Javascript + JQuery + plugins. And the latter works on all platforms not the smallest portion of Microsoft's future platform.
Click to expand...

The point of Metro is to being a touch and physics UI to Windows in a form that's familiar via apps delivered to a store with the simplification that is associated with tablets. No missing DLLs or obscure error codes, etc. And sue, you can use cross platform JavaScript but plenty of developers have talked about the issues there. You lose performance and the ability to tie into platform specific features and hardware.

Fort_Major said:
Microsoft needed to give a damn good compelling reason to build applications that run on 7% of the desktops and 1% of the tablets and convince developers that it was worth to push IT to get "Windows 8".

Windows Metro is actually more the exact opposite.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. But I would suspect that as the number of Windows 8 devices grows the argument will be made for Microsoft. I've said from the beginning that this was going to take time and that it would be a tough fight for Microsoft. The slow adoption rate of Windows 8 is obviously slowing things down but there's going to be a point where there's enough Windows 8 machines out there where it will simply becomes worth it. I don't know what that number is exactly but I'd say that by the end of the year if Windows 8 can hit 10% desktop market share then yeah, it probably makes more sense do a Windows 8 app over a Linux app. Of course a nice mix of those machines being tablets would be even more incentive and that's also a problem for Microsoft. But as the Windows 8 tablets get better and the prices come down, more Windows 8 devices will be touch and tablets.
 
heatlesssun said:
Again, if by that 50,000 year old glacier you mean COM ok. COM just happens to be the basis of some of the most successful computer software ever built. People around here are always clamoring against change for change's sake which is a valid point. Why not continue to use successful and proven technology if it can still meat the requirements?



Really? Isn't one of the big reasons why people are saying that Windows RT is a failure is because it can't run x86 software?



The point of Metro is to being a touch and physics UI to Windows in a form that's familiar via apps delivered to a store with the simplification that is associated with tablets. No missing DLLs or obscure error codes, etc. And sue, you can use cross platform JavaScript but plenty of developers have talked about the issues there. You lose performance and the ability to tie into platform specific features and hardware.



I agree with this. But I would suspect that as the number of Windows 8 devices grows the argument will be made for Microsoft. I've said from the beginning that this was going to take time and that it would be a tough fight for Microsoft. The slow adoption rate of Windows 8 is obviously slowing things down but there's going to be a point where there's enough Windows 8 machines out there where it will simply becomes worth it. I don't know what that number is exactly but I'd say that by the end of the year if Windows 8 can hit 10% desktop market share then yeah, it probably makes more sense do a Windows 8 app over a Linux app. Of course a nice mix of those machines being tablets would be even more incentive and that's also a problem for Microsoft. But as the Windows 8 tablets get better and the prices come down, more Windows 8 devices will be touch and tablets.
Click to expand...

You sure are optimistic for MS. They will most likely the first time in MS history loose money on a Flagship product. They will hemorrhage cash just like they did on the xbox.

RT is a failure because it can't do what x86 can. Its a lost cause they might as well Zune it.
The worst part is that they depend on OEM. If they want to push like xbox agenda they will have to compete with OEM. This will just end up hurting them because it will piss of OEM's. Piss a 900(several) pound gorilla(s) off and they might just decide to DUMP millions/billions into developing a consumer alternative such as Linux. All OEM vs MS = MS Lose. Look at Google's success with Android. The biggest thing is that MS has been pushing a lot of companies out of business by doing "Free" addons in a paid product such Windows. How can they compete with a company that gives out the equivalent of a paid MS product for free. They can't they will become another Novell, Netscape in no time flat.

MS is treading a fine line the more cloud computing gets pushed the less you will depend on Native Windows apps which in turn will lead to less sales of Windows OS'. Balmer is a fucking goof that will fuck up MS.

Even tho I sell and fix MS stuff for a living and am even certified I want MS to fail. MS has pissed a lot of people off in the last couple years they deserve everything they get. They stopped listening to customers, they have ignored issues and infact lapsed in releasing high quality products. Windows 8 and server 2012 are buggy as shit. Office 2013 is atrocious and no one wants to use it, people are complaining about the horrific UI.
 
wonderfield said:
Just as a reminder, you're talking to a person who believes that JavaScript is a native programming language.
Click to expand...

This is concise description of how the three language environments work in Windows RT:

C# code using the WinRT still runs on the 4.5 CLR. When you write a Metro style app in C#, you have a CLR loaded in your process, and you have access to a subset of managed APIs chosen specifically for use with Metro style applications.

WinRT is a protocol and a set of Native APIs, allowing each language to remain true to its existing execution environment - Chakra for JavaScript, CLR for C# and the CRT/raw native code for C++.

Martyn Lovell
Development Manager
Windows Developer Experience
Click to expand...

http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Fo.../thread/639b8eb3-ae78-4ca5-a5ad-329366f1816b/
 
Wrench00 said:
You sure are optimistic for MS. They will most likely the first time in MS history loose money on a Flagship product. They will hemorrhage cash just like they did on the xbox.
Click to expand...

You just contradicted yourself. The Xbox is a flagship product. Numbers for Microsoft will be out in a few weeks. I think a number of top investment firms have Microsoft rated a buy right now which is odd if they they are hemorrhaging cash.

Wrench00 said:
RT is a failure because it can't do what x86 can. Its a lost cause they might as well Zune it.
Click to expand...

No, ARM CPUs don't run x86 code too well. And you might have me confused with someone else as I've repeatedly said that I'm not a fan of Windows RT because of this reason and have recommended Clover Trail tablets over Windows RT devices every time the subject has come up.

Wrench00 said:
The worst part is that they depend on OEM. If they want to push like xbox agenda they will have to compete with OEM. This will just end up hurting them because it will piss of OEM's. Piss a 900(several) pound gorilla(s) off and they might just decide to DUMP millions/billions into developing a consumer alternative such as Linux. All OEM vs MS = MS Lose.
Click to expand...

And a lot of OEMs have been pushing out a lot of crap as well. And you just said that OEMs might decide to go with alternatives, that could happen without Microsoft being in the hardware business couldn't it? I don't think that Microsoft wants to compete with its OEMs but at the same time if OEMs have a backup plan then it might be wise for Microsoft to have one as well.

Wrench00 said:
Look at Google's success with Android. The biggest thing is that MS has been pushing a lot of companies out of business by doing "Free" addons in a paid product such Windows. How can they compete with a company that gives out the equivalent of a paid MS product for free. They can't they will become another Novell, Netscape in no time flat.
Click to expand...

Google has been doing well with Android as has Samsung, and just about nobody else. Android is running into the same problems as PCs, cheap low margin crap. Of course you're supposed to buy that cheap low margin crap every year unlike a PC which is a plus for Google.

Wrench00 said:
MS is treading a fine line the more cloud computing gets pushed the less you will depend on Native Windows apps which in turn will lead to less sales of Windows OS'. Balmer is a fucking goof that will fuck up MS.

Even tho I sell and fix MS stuff for a living and am even certified I want MS to fail. MS has pissed a lot of people off in the last couple years they deserve everything they get.
Click to expand...

People have been wanting Microsoft to fail for years. Nothing new here. And if you want Microsoft to fail you should be happy with Ballmer as CEO. And sure the cloud is a threat. Nothing new there either. The cloud is still not nearly as practical I think as you make it out to be. There's a lot of costs to consider, local storage is still much cheaper and easier to manage and so forth. And client computing isn't exactly standing still. 4k displays on the way for instance. At any rate it's a cost game, when the cloud becomes cheaper than local then yeah, big time trouble for Microsoft.

Wrench00 said:
They stopped listening to customers, they have ignored issues and infact lapsed in releasing high quality products. Windows 8 and server 2012 are buggy as shit. Office 2013 is atrocious and no one wants to use it, people are complaining about the horrific UI.
Click to expand...

Not listening to customers, again not exactly anything that hasn't been said about Microsoft forever. They listen, they just don't do what everyone wants which is just life. As for your assessment of Windows 8/2012 Server quality, that's how you see it. I've not used it in the enterprise, just on my personal systems as I have Windows 7 and haven't encountered any major issues. The biggest for me personally is the lack of support for multiple monitor virtual resolutions like Eyefinity and Surround which aren't supported in 7 either by the OS but the drivers haven't been updated to handle it like in 7.
 
heatlesssun said:
This is concise description of how the three language environments work in Windows RT
Click to expand...
The JavaScript engine, like any other modern JavaScript engine, implements JavaScript built-ins natively. The functions call into natively-executed code. All other JavaScript code (user code) is jitted by necessity. Thus, no JavaScript Metro apps are 'native'. The only 'native' Metro apps are those written entirely in a native programming language, and those are few and far between.
 
heatlesssun said:
You left out the important part, Windows RT apps are native code, Silverlight/WPF apps aren't. Having a native code platform was a must since many top tier developers often require it.
Click to expand...

The same developers that have been ignoring W8 and WinRT?

If you're going to push the cloud then you'd better get real cozy with Javascript. If you think developers are going to bother with RT API, then you'd better get accustomed to waiting months and years for applications to surface.
 
Last edited:
RT's biggest failure hasn't been mentioned once in this thread. It was simply TOO LATE TO THE PARTY! Look, you have your IOS peeps, and you have your Android peeps. These people have a platform, and accounts, and already purchased apps for their phones and tablets. They aren't going to switch platforms unless there's overwhelmingly convincing reasons to do so. Why would they create yet another account, and rebuy their software all over again...

Microsoft said "hey, come to our platform - we got CRAP in our store because it's brand new. BUT you can use your metro apps on ALL your devices" But that's failing because people don't want to run APPS on their desktop - they want to run real software. People don't want to run APPS on their xbox, they want to run real games. The only place for apps is on phones and tablets. And there's no reason to switch.

If RT had come out when the 1st or 2nd gen Iphone came out, and enticed developers to make stuff - I think it probably would have done very well. But now - it's just 5 years too late to the party...
 
Kongar said:
RT's biggest failure hasn't been mentioned once in this thread. It was simply TOO LATE TO THE PARTY! Look, you have your IOS peeps, and you have your Android peeps. These people have a platform, and accounts, and already purchased apps for their phones and tablets. They aren't going to switch platforms unless there's overwhelmingly convincing reasons to do so. Why would they create yet another account, and rebuy their software all over again...

Microsoft said "hey, come to our platform - we got CRAP in our store because it's brand new. BUT you can use your metro apps on ALL your devices" But that's failing because people don't want to run APPS on their desktop - they want to run real software. People don't want to run APPS on their xbox, they want to run real games. The only place for apps is on phones and tablets. And there's no reason to switch.

If RT had come out when the 1st or 2nd gen Iphone came out, and enticed developers to make stuff - I think it probably would have done very well. But now - it's just 5 years too late to the party...
Click to expand...
That's part of the problem.

But I think Microsoft can nose their way into a number 3 spot if they come up with the right products (Surface pro like devices) and market it to the right people (the business world).
 
wonderfield said:
The JavaScript engine, like any other modern JavaScript engine, implements JavaScript built-ins natively. The functions call into natively-executed code. All other JavaScript code (user code) is jitted by necessity. Thus, no JavaScript Metro apps are 'native'. The only 'native' Metro apps are those written entirely in a native programming language, and those are few and far between.
Click to expand...

Metro apps can be built with multiple languages while supporting that language's capabilities. You could create a front end in JavaScript/HTML and can call a custom native C++ Windows Runtime component: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/windowsappd...onents-to-deliver-great-metro-style-apps.aspx. A JavaScript/HTML layer can also call managed Windows RT components as well written in a .NET language. You can't create a Windows RT component in JavaScript. So a Metro app does not need to be written totally in a native language to take advantage of custom native code performance and capabilities.
 
pelo said:
The same developers that have been ignoring W8 and WinRT?

If you're going to push the cloud then you'd better get real cozy with Javascript. If you think developers are going to bother with RT API, then you'd better get accustomed to waiting months and years for applications to surface.
Click to expand...

You do realize that developers are already using much of the Windows RT API in a big way, it's called DirectX. Windows RT was explicitly designed to be well known to developers that know Win32, COM, C++,C#,VB,C++, JS and in theory anything that .NET can support like Python or what have you. I know that some of you guys think that Microsoft is completely incompetent but don't you think they realized that people weren't going to spend a lot of time trying to learn a totally brand new API and languages?
 
Kongar said:
But now - it's just 5 years too late to the party...
Click to expand...

Microsoft is never first to anything. Windows, Office and even the Xbox were late in their day. Of course being late doesn't help but it's still pretty early in the tablet game and even phone game. It's certainly much earlier than the desktop game where there for some reason think that Linux on the desktop is all of sudden going to garner massive 3rd party support because Windows 8 has an app store.
 
heatlesssun said:
Microsoft is never first to anything. Windows, Office and even the Xbox were late in their day. Of course being late doesn't help but it's still pretty early in the tablet game and even phone game. It's certainly much earlier than the desktop game where there for some reason think that Linux on the desktop is all of sudden going to garner massive 3rd party support because Windows 8 has an app store.
Click to expand...

I dunno man, I'm kinda old - I don't remember much before MS-DOS being popular at home. And while I think the macintosh beat windows to the GUI scene - it wasn't years and years, and they were like 2nd. I'll give you Office - I'm still not sure how they usurped Lotus 123 and wordperfect - but the pulled that one off. But I dunno - you really think it's early in the phone and tablet game? I mean, what could you possibly ask a phone to do that it doesn't already do? Tablets - I dunno. The surface pro might have a hook - kind of a laptop, kind of a tablet - somewhere inbetween. But I'm still not sold on even that replacing an ultrabook and a phone. And besides, that doesn't help RT. I think they missed the boat - and I think they are later to the game than they've ever been. Maybe they need to figure out what they did with office and apply that to RT...
 
Kongar said:
I dunno man, I'm kinda old - I don't remember much before MS-DOS being popular at home. And while I think the macintosh beat windows to the GUI scene - it wasn't years and years, and they were like 2nd. I'll give you Office - I'm still not sure how they usurped Lotus 123 and wordperfect - but the pulled that one off. But I dunno - you really think it's early in the phone and tablet game? I mean, what could you possibly ask a phone to do that it doesn't already do? Tablets - I dunno. The surface pro might have a hook - kind of a laptop, kind of a tablet - somewhere inbetween. But I'm still not sold on even that replacing an ultrabook and a phone. And besides, that doesn't help RT. I think they missed the boat - and I think they are later to the game than they've ever been. Maybe they need to figure out what they did with office and apply that to RT...
Click to expand...
I agree. If MS wanted to break onto the mobile scene, 2010 was the year to do it.

By now, you've got too many people invested in their platform of choice.

If MS can INNOVATE again and come out with something BETTER, then they've got a shot. (much like Apple with iOS spearheading the next generation of smartphones and bringing RIM to its knees). The surface pro is the closest they have to something that might catch on (tablets that double as fully functioning PC's) but I'm afraid that can too easily be replicated and the complexity of tasks the average person does on a day to day basis is going down, not up; thus, eliminating the need for a full fledged PC for a substantial number of people.
 
heatlesssun said:
So a Metro app does not need to be written totally in a native language to take advantage of custom native code performance and capabilities.
Click to expand...
Then by your definition, all web apps executed in modern web browsers are also native applications. You may wish to revise your internal definition to a more widely-accepted definition.
 
wonderfield said:
Then by your definition, all web apps executed in modern web browsers are also native applications. You may wish to revise your internal definition to a more widely-accepted definition.
Click to expand...

You're trying to make it more complicated than it is. I've not studied the lower level aspects of Windows RT development since the Developer Preview came out and simply went back and read up because everyone here talking about Windows RT development, me, you, everyone, haven't had all the facts straight or been very clear about it.

You said "The only 'native' Metro apps are those written entirely in a native programming language". With the ability for non-native apps to call native Windows Runtime components this statement is at best leaving at a very important aspect of Windows RT app development that obviously allows for custom native code to run even in the context of a JS/HTML app. That's not a standard capability of JS/HTML code running in a stand alone web browser.
 
wonderfield said:
Then by your definition, all web apps executed in modern web browsers are also native applications. You may wish to revise your internal definition to a more widely-accepted definition.
Click to expand...
I get what heatlesssun is saying, and that's not it. ;)

If you look at something like WebOS, where system services are available through JS, you can "take advantage of custom native code performance and capabilities". Normal JS is limited to whatever is available to the web browser, and hopefully it's sandboxed to do close to nothing on the host OS besides what few system APIs are made available (WebGL, embed a plug-in, etc). :p

Windows Runtime (WinRT contains Metro) is an odd beast and some of the concepts behind it are unusual to someone who is not familiar with its predecessors. (I admit to being a bit ignorant of it myself after seeing early "Son of Avalon" specs and deciding "pass" since I wasn't convinced by WPF either.) In some cases you can think of it as a set of native code Legos, tied together with XAML and some other programming language. It seems to address some of the problems plaguing .NET, which is virtually ignored for commercial application development. This is a good overview of WPF/Avalon, which WinRT somewhat resembles: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc188739.aspx
 
Last edited:
WinRT is an attempt to preserve some of the goodness of WPF (XAML), provide access to a new API that's modern and not built on top of C-based Win32, while trying to attract developers who want JS/HTML5 and those who refuse to use MS technologies like .NET/C# because, well, because they are made by MS.

You wouldn't believe the number of clueless, highly paid professional programmers who are idiots and go around spouting nonsense like 'C# is a copy of Java', '.NET sucks' etc while at the same time copy pasting the latest code sample from php/js/jquery and declaring the project done.
 
RT fails because the HARDWARE IS TOO EXPENSIVE. why buy a tablet that cost more than a laptop that can run all of your productivity software?

Boom baby...
 
YeuEmMaiMai said:
RT fails because the HARDWARE IS TOO EXPENSIVE. why buy a tablet that cost more than a laptop that can run all of your productivity software?

Boom baby...
Click to expand...

Which is exactly what I said earlier...

What makes it even worse is that there are Atom Windows 8 tablets that are cheaper than the cheapest Windows RT tablets.
 
Tsumi said:
What makes it even worse is that there are Atom Windows 8 tablets that are cheaper than the cheapest Windows RT tablets.
Click to expand...
Some of those are pretty cheap. I looked at a Chinese seller and if you buy several thousand at a time, you can get an Atom N2600 tablet with 32GB storage and Windows 8 for $175. Q1 pricing is $330. Specs are pretty terribad though.

It seems that many Atom tablets from recognizable/reputable makers with decent specs (no 1024x768 screen) start around the same price as Windows RT tablets, which is a different kind of fail. What are these makers thinking? You aren't going to get an Apple premium on your devices, because you're not Apple and Windows RT doesn't have even a minimally healthy demand.
 
pxc said:
Some of those are pretty cheap. I looked at a Chinese seller and if you buy several thousand at a time, you can get an Atom N2600 tablet with 32GB storage and Windows 8 for $175. Q1 pricing is $330. Specs are pretty terribad though.

It seems that many Atom tablets from recognizable/reputable makers with decent specs (no 1024x768 screen) start around the same price as Windows RT tablets, which is a different kind of fail. What are these makers thinking? You aren't going to get an Apple premium on your devices, because you're not Apple and Windows RT doesn't have even a minimally healthy demand.
Click to expand...

All you have to do is look at Newegg. I looked specifically at Asus and tried to match the specs as much as possible:

Asus ME400C with 64gb SSD is $480, has an Atom Z2760.
Asus Vivo Tab RT with 64gb SSD is $600, and has the Tegra 3.
Asus Transformer TF700T with 64gb is $530, and has the Tegra 3.
 
Tsumi said:
All you have to do is look at Newegg. I looked specifically at Asus and tried to match the specs as much as possible:

Asus ME400C with 64gb SSD is $480, has an Atom Z2760.
Asus Vivo Tab RT with 64gb SSD is $600, and has the Tegra 3.
Asus Transformer TF700T with 64gb is $530, and has the Tegra 3.
Click to expand...

Windows on ARM is basically a hedge and necessary work, Microsoft has to have some version of Windows running on ARM, ARM is simply too prevalent to ignore these days. Everyone thinks of ARM only for tablets and phones but ARM has bigger dreams, We already see ARM in servers and it could end up in desktop oriented OSes for laptops and even possibly desktops is the performance gets there.

I would really like to know how well Atom Clover Trail devices have sold. There really do represent a much better option than Windows RT tablets. Indeed I was very curious why Microsoft didn't make a Clover Trail Surface. That couldn't have been by accident.
 
^WP 8 - the phone part would have worked just fine. matter of fact they could have just called Windows for Tablets
 
Charlie has a new, brilliantly written piece on WinRT.

SOURCE

Microsoft can never compete in tablets and phones, period, and this is not a qualified statement, it is an inherent property of the choices the company made over the last 3 decades. Microsoft has no chance in mobile no matter what they do, their very business model precludes sucess in a world they still fail to understand.
Click to expand...

A lot of what he points out as being wrong with WinRT could be solved by the advice I gave earlier. Basically, WinRT should of been it's own OS without the desktop. It would of saved a ton of the clutter and processing that it has to do. Also, the OS should of focused on fun/social rather than work as work is not what most tablets are used for.

He also talks about how OEMs have to spend $90 for each WinRT device, where as they make money on each Android device they sell, plus the hardware is cheaper.
 
Last edited:
Ironic how MS gives away shit for free to kill companies RIP Netscape, Novell, etc.. How will MS compete when a paid for equivalent is being given away completely for free like Google's Android. Are they gone give away RT and Windows Phone for Free? MS devices will just be doomed to be inferior then Android devices. Android evolves 100X times then Windows Crap.
 
Wrench00 said:
Ironic how MS gives away shit for free to kill companies RIP Netscape, Novell, etc.. How will MS compete when a paid for equivalent is being given away completely for free like Google's Android. Are they gone give away RT and Windows Phone for Free? MS devices will just be doomed to be inferior then Android devices. Android evolves 100X times then Windows Crap.
Click to expand...
Android is still better than Windows 8 RT even if MS made Windows 8 RT free.

The problem is that they made Windows 8 a one sized fits all solution, without giving users any choice. Rather than giving a good experience for both Desktops and Tablets, they gave a compromised experience to both. The shame is that only a few tweaks would be needed to make it into a great product; yet, the greed of using their desktop market share to jump start their app store as well as the overall arrogance that Microsoft has displayed for nearly a decade has made MS get in its own way.
 
heatlesssun said:
Windows on ARM is basically a hedge and necessary work, Microsoft has to have some version of Windows running on ARM, ARM is simply too prevalent to ignore these days. Everyone thinks of ARM only for tablets and phones but ARM has bigger dreams, We already see ARM in servers and it could end up in desktop oriented OSes for laptops and even possibly desktops is the performance gets there.
Click to expand...

Then why are Windows RT products so expensive and why only tablets? The smart thing to do would have been to build these things cheap and sell them as close to cost as possible to encourage software development. Why not get Dell or somebody to build small, super cheap Windows RT boxes for businesses?

They need software for Windows RT, and for that they need users. You can't expect to introduce expensive devices with a new OS into a mature(ish) market and have software magically appear.
 
Of course it failed.

I would be more surprised if it succeeded. Microsoft should be praying right now, praying that Intel comes up with a real competitive x86 answer to ARM.

The reason people want Windows is because of:

1. The legacy of applications.
2. Relative openness, it's not a free OS, but it is quite an open OS.
3. This is personal but, UI. I like Windows taskbar / start menu / tray bar layout.

With Windows RT, Microsoft:

1. Takes away all the legacy.
2. Locks down the OS, even more so than Apple. This applies to Windows Phone aswell.
3. Introduces and forces an awful, AWFUL UI.

Metro

Microsoft should seriously conduct an internal investigation to find out where people that suggested and came up with Metro come from. Microsoft got infiltrated with a virus called "Metro". That UI is so terrible it killed Windows Phone, RT and now it's killing Windows itself. And Microsoft cannot see it.

The thing is, Windows 8 idea was good. It's a great idea in fact, however the execution... is so Microsoft.


Microsoft has absolutely no chance in the ARM and "post PC" world. Windows does not even scale properly to high resolution screens. Set it to anywhere else other than 100% DPI and it looks all weird and out of proportions.
 
Many people are fine with Metro on the touchscreen interface. It's the Metro in the desktop environment that most people have an issue with.

Besides, the origins of Metro came from the Zune HD, which then got carried onto Windows Phone 7 and now Windows 8, Windows RT, and Windows Phone 8. Apparently they got good enough feedback on the Zune HD and Windows Phone 7 that they decided to keep that interface as their primary touch interface. If you're going to make some accusations like that, you should look up your facts first.
 
DeathFromBelow said:
They need software for Windows RT, and for that they need users. You can't expect to introduce expensive devices with a new OS into a mature(ish) market and have software magically appear.
Click to expand...

But vast majority of uses running Metro apps are and will be Windows 8 users.
 
heatlesssun said:
But vast majority of uses running Metro apps are and will be Windows 8 users.
Click to expand...

How many people are really using Metro apps? It doesn't make sense on the desktop and I think the tablet market is going to end up being a lot smaller than everyone expected once things settle down.

I think a low cost, power-efficient Windows RT box in a tiny form factor would be compelling for business users and could have helped sell Office subscriptions. I'm sure some subset of home users would have been interested in it, too. I would have picked up a little RT machine to play around with in my living room if the cost was low enough and it had some media center capabilities.
 
If I was MS I would have just made 1 version of the ARM OS and done the following

Windows for phones includes a smart dialer similar to the one in WM 6.5 but updated to fit in the new GUI theme.

Windows for tablets does not include the dialer.

Both versions would have:

The same start screen
Support for all the latest cellular and wireless options like LTE, HDPSA+, BT 4 and AGN
Windows style resolution support so manufacurers could make their own devices and not be locked into 480*800 or 720*1280
Slightly better SD Card support (like the ability to store programs on them)
Better theme/color selection

This would have made it more popular imho due to developers only having to mess with one platform instead of 2 on arm while giving them some flexibility
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top