So Long, Windows RT. We Barely Knew You

CommanderFrank

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,399
If you are one of the ones that thought Windows RT never received a fair shake, add one more slap in the face to Microsoft’s red-headed stepchild, Windows RT. When the announcement was made of what applications would be receiving Windows 10 lovin’, Windows RT had to settle for a nod and a pat on the head.

I can understand Microsoft’s decision here: It’s focusing on devices that have a larger following and not on a platform that once cost it a $900 million inventory..
Click to expand...
 
I think "Windows ReTard" every time I see the name.
 
I find the phrase "red-headed stepchild" extremely offensive.
 
I actually like Windows RT in theory but in reality I never paid for it so I guess I didn't help to save it from extinction.
 
the_servicer said:
I actually like Windows RT in theory but in reality I never paid for it so I guess I didn't help to save it from extinction.
Click to expand...

Functionally retarded pseudo-Windows with no apps, an ugly UI designed for five year olds and locked down with no sideloading just like an Xbox, sure what's not to like?
 
DPI said:
Functionally retarded pseudo-Windows with no apps, an ugly UI designed for five year olds and locked down with no sideloading just like an Xbox, sure what's not to like?
Click to expand...

It was a low power tablet OS, that had all of the bells and whistles of the desktop OS, including Office, minus the ability to install "desktop" apps. In my opinion, it was legitimately better than an iPad but didn't have the apps to back it up. It has USB, which everyone wanted, it had excellent battery life, but everyone just hates Microsoft for some reason.

Intel is making great strides in x86/64 chips too, so there really isn't a point to it now.
 
SparkedFire said:
It was a low power tablet OS, that had all of the bells and whistles of the desktop OS, including Office, minus the ability to install "desktop" apps. In my opinion, it was legitimately better than an iPad but didn't have the apps to back it up. It has USB, which everyone wanted, it had excellent battery life, but everyone just hates Microsoft for some reason.

Intel is making great strides in x86/64 chips too, so there really isn't a point to it now.
Click to expand...

The Microsoft hate is totally justified. They have stolen from me and vandalized the source code of my favorite game. F Microsoft.
 
DPI said:
Functionally retarded pseudo-Windows with no apps, an ugly UI designed for five year olds and locked down with no sideloading just like an Xbox, sure what's not to like?
Click to expand...

Had some decent apps, Office and several others. Ugly UI for 5 year olds? Could say the same for iOS. I find it's very useful on a tablet, rather than small icons with no data. Live tiles are excellent on the form factor. Locked down? I can see why. I don't like it, either. But, it's a secure, stable tablet OS. Start throwing a lot of crappy sideloaded apps on it, and it could go to shit. Similar to some Android tablets. It's a risk you take, but they just took that risk away from the end user.

I think RT had a place in the market, but it never had a chance. With cheap Windows 8.1 tablets taking over, the RT was just an expensive, larger tablet with a limited OS. For the same or less, you could get an off-brand Windows 8.1 device and run anything on it.

My beef with the iPad was that the apps were too limited. There came a point where it just wasn't a productive device. That's when I wanted a better tablet. The RT had the exact same limitations of the iPad. Great for a simple tablet, but if you wanted more, you had to upgrade to the Surface Pro. And that's where it got good. Full Windows OS, no limitations. Made RT look like ass. So, in a way, RT was killed by it's bigger brother. No reason to get RT. The alternatives could be cheaper (Dell Venue Pro 8), even though they were smaller. Or they could be fully featured but cost a little more...
 
Good riddance. There's no need for it with Intel's new Atom processors.
 
Aaron11 said:
Good riddance. There's no need for it with Intel's new Atom processors.
Click to expand...

yep, the last thing we need is fragmented processor architectures for windows
 
Aaron11 said:
Good riddance. There's no need for it with Intel's new Atom processors.
Click to expand...

From the beginning I saw Windows on ARM as a hedge. In 2012 Intel released Clover Trail to get Windows 8 on tablets but the performance just wasn't there. Things improved dramatically with Bay Trail and with free Windows licensing now on tablets there are some very nice Atom devices that are very capable and well performing.

And in a way the failure of Windows RT justifies the hybrid design on Windows 8 but not that Windows 8 didn't make a lot of mistakes with the UI from a keyboard and mouse user perspective. Many however have said "Why does Microsoft just make a tablet only OS, like Apple?" Well, Windows RT was that tablet only OS and of the top reasons it failed was because it was incompatible with Win32 apps. That and Atom based devices were coming in for less money than Windows RT devices.

While I agree that the average tablet user isn't looking to run desktop apps on their tablets, some are. And while that is a small market it is one that will spend money on the right kind of hardware. That's why the Surface Pro 3 seems to have been something of hit. Something that can work like a tablet but also like a desktop. Without this ability, there just won't be any interest in Windows tablets. I am as big a Windows guy as there is and I never saw a reason to by a Windows RT device.
 
Damn I was just about to post "Bye bye windows RT you won't be missed" in the OS section.
 
The ARM Windows kernel will probably live on, just not in the consumer space. I'd say there is still a chance that you will see an ARM server edition somewhere down the line.
 
Kor said:
The ARM Windows kernel will probably live on, just not in the consumer space. I'd say there is still a chance that you will see an ARM server edition somewhere down the line.
Click to expand...

It will certainly live on in phones and possibly small tablets. Microsoft did mention on Wednesday that Windows Phone is targeted at devices 7" and smaller. But my guess is that few if any will make tablets based on windows ARM. It was interesting that Microsoft specifically set the cutoff point at 7" for Windows Phone and 8" and above for full Windows. There are a few Windows 8.1 7" tablets out there now like the HP Stream 7. I would imagine that these devices will be upgradable to Windows 10 but the experience might not be optimal.
 
Even if Windows RT was way better then Android it still didn't get any foothold because the people are not bound to MS.

The artificial stranglehold on the desktop market is not something that translates into sales on tablets/phones unless MS/Intel pays OEM to make equipment using their products at no or little cost.

MS proves that they have no experience of running a business unless they can force out the competition as what they did with the desktop market.

Some of you are talking about how ARM is not needed now that there are more powerful cpu running Windows on x86 tablets. While this is true it sad that after 25 years of total monopoly people working for MS are still that incompetent in making an OS run on hardware which uses less cpu power and less memory.

And yet some of you praise MS for making it work, it amounts to applauding your child at a very young age to go potty and still cheer for him if he goes potty at the age of 26.
 
so what happens to all the people who bought RT devices?
They get no more apps or support eh?
 
Pieter3dnow said:
The artificial stranglehold on the desktop market is not something that translates into sales on tablets/phones unless MS/Intel pays OEM to make equipment using their products at no or little cost.
Click to expand...

Why are there no Windows RT tablets being made yet tons of x86 Windows 8.1 tablets coming out? True, Windows is now free for most tablets. It's not like Google ever charged for Android. There's a at least a niche market for small, battery efficient Windows desktop compatible devices. Obviously more so than Windows RT devices of the same characteristics.
 
dr.kevin said:
so what happens to all the people who bought RT devices?
They get no more apps or support eh?
Click to expand...

For now the common consensus is that that will be treated like Windows Phone 7 devices. They'll get an update and will be able to still run at least some modern apps for a while until apps become specifially Windows 10 targeted, which will probably happen quickly given Windows 10's upgrade pricing for the first year of zero.

It is unfortunate that Microsoft doesn't seem to be going forward and throwing these people under a bus. That said, there were always x86 devices for sale that I always saw as being a much better way to go. I was never a fan of RT from the begning but I did at one point think it was necessary. I was wrong. It wasn't necessarey. In my defense I didn't expect to see the quality, performance and pricing in x86 Windows devices that has occured. Not just a year after Windows 8 was released.
 
Pieter3dnow said:
Even if Windows RT was way better then Android it still didn't get any foothold because the people are not bound to MS.

The artificial stranglehold on the desktop market is not something that translates into sales on tablets/phones unless MS/Intel pays OEM to make equipment using their products at no or little cost.

MS proves that they have no experience of running a business unless they can force out the competition as what they did with the desktop market.

Some of you are talking about how ARM is not needed now that there are more powerful cpu running Windows on x86 tablets. While this is true it sad that after 25 years of total monopoly people working for MS are still that incompetent in making an OS run on hardware which uses less cpu power and less memory.

And yet some of you praise MS for making it work, it amounts to applauding your child at a very young age to go potty and still cheer for him if he goes potty at the age of 26.
Click to expand...

There has been no "mobile" OS that was better then Windows RT, in terms of functioning with the rest of the world. Chromebook sucks and is not a real OS.

It's not about "more powerful" CPU's being available, it's about CPU's that use as much power as RISC, but offer x86 instruction set. I had a Windows RT tablet, I have a Chromebook, and I have a Bay Trail tablet. The Bay Trail is amazing for the price. Truly a modern marvel being able to get modern Windows in the $60-$100 price point.
 
westrock2000 said:
There has been no "mobile" OS that was better then Windows RT, in terms of functioning with the rest of the world. Chromebook sucks and is not a real OS.
Click to expand...

Speaking of dead devices, hello Chromebooks. Just look at this past holiday season. Not saying that x86 Windows 8.1 tablets ruled the world, but compare the number of Windows tablets OEMs launched to the number of Chromebooks in that timeframe. And look at the fact that Chrome OS is starting to support Android apps. Chrome OS is now a hybrid OS. Ironic.

westrock2000 said:
The Bay Trail is amazing for the price. Truly a modern marvel being able to get modern Windows in the $60-$100 price point.
Click to expand...

And this has a lot to do with the failure of Windows on ARM. There's just no point to it.
 
I personally find that my Surface 2 is fantastic. Long battery life, fast, desktop for networking support and flash in Internet Explorer. 1080P screen, quad core processor and it runs cool and fast like I said before. Oh, and did I mention it is fast. :D

Sure, I am disappointed that I will not have Win10 on it but, I also know that it works great just as it is. I do not find any need to run out and buy a new tablet when this one works great and gets the job done with ease. I have not once heard anyone who actually owns a Surface RT or Surface 2 complain about it as long as it is used for what it can do.

Maybe a year from now, when the Surface 2 are $299 as a refurb price, will I get a new tablet. I see no reason to bother with anything else since this full support from Microsoft when it comes to just being able to work. (Use it as a laptop and tablet both, nice, light, fast and does the job.)
 
Pieter3dnow said:
Even if Windows RT was way better then Android it still didn't get any foothold because the people are not bound to MS.

The artificial stranglehold on the desktop market is not something that translates into sales on tablets/phones unless MS/Intel pays OEM to make equipment using their products at no or little cost.

MS proves that they have no experience of running a business unless they can force out the competition as what they did with the desktop market.

Some of you are talking about how ARM is not needed now that there are more powerful cpu running Windows on x86 tablets. While this is true it sad that after 25 years of total monopoly people working for MS are still that incompetent in making an OS run on hardware which uses less cpu power and less memory.

And yet some of you praise MS for making it work, it amounts to applauding your child at a very young age to go potty and still cheer for him if he goes potty at the age of 26.
Click to expand...

Wrong. It did not get any foothold because they charged to much for it at the beginning and used the Tegra 3 which was not all that fast. When the units where being pushed out as a refurb at $169 in late 2013, those sold out fast. That shows that the price was just to high for what a person was getting from it.
 
SparkedFire said:
It was a low power tablet OS, that had all of the bells and whistles of the desktop OS, including Office, minus the ability to install "desktop" apps. In my opinion, it was legitimately better than an iPad but didn't have the apps to back it up. It has USB, which everyone wanted, it had excellent battery life, but everyone just hates Microsoft for some reason.

Intel is making great strides in x86/64 chips too, so there really isn't a point to it now.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree, the hate is not justified. It would have made a lot of sense in 2012 to have these start out at $250 with a keyboard which still would have netted them less loss than they ended up with. Now though, x86 Win8 tablets are less expensive so, there is no reason for them now to continue.

That said, I am going keep using my Surface 2 since the Pro cost more. Also, the Pro line is the only tablet that comes close to my Surface 2 in capability and usage scenario. The Asus line is straight up junk and you could not pay me to have one.
 
RIP in Peace Windows RT.

But seriously, once you had ~200 dollar and under tablets running full Windows 8, you knew RT's days were numbered. All of a sudden whatever market niche RT could have had just vanished into thin air.
 
Falling Anvil said:
RIP in Peace Windows RT.

But seriously, once you had ~200 dollar and under tablets running full Windows 8, you knew RT's days were numbered. All of a sudden whatever market niche RT could have had just vanished into thin air.
Click to expand...

Windows RT is not dead and will have continued support in this iteration. However, no new OS will be produced for it which is disappointing but true.
 
ManofGod said:
Wrong. It did not get any foothold because they charged to much for it at the beginning and used the Tegra 3 which was not all that fast. When the units where being pushed out as a refurb at $169 in late 2013, those sold out fast. That shows that the price was just to high for what a person was getting from it.
Click to expand...

And the point is clearly stated was that MS can't deal with making a kernel lean and mean so what is wrong?

And you are confirming that as a business MS can only sell at a loss to get rid of their stock rather then do something productive and make money. No money no WindowsRT .
 
Pieter3dnow said:
Some of you are talking about how ARM is not needed now that there are more powerful cpu running Windows on x86 tablets. While this is true it sad that after 25 years of total monopoly people working for MS are still that incompetent in making an OS run on hardware which uses less cpu power and less memory.
Click to expand...

Oh really? Try this:

- Get a netbook or something with an AMD C-60 processor.
- Install your favorite Linux distro. Use it for a few days.
- Install Windows 7. Use it for a few days.

Let's see if after that you still have the nerve to say that "people working for MS are still that incompetent in making an OS run on hardware which uses less cpu power and less memory".

I hate to burst your bubble, but that's just not true, and it hasn't been for a while.
 
And I'm not even talking about Windows 8/8.1. It's even better than 7 on the little machine!
 
I have Mint on my Atom n270 netbook. I don't really notice much of a difference in responsiveness between it and Windows 7 or XP. Aside from Firefox being slower to open under Mint than IE is under Windows...FF after dropping into the Mint homepage (i never changed it from default) pauses and goes unresponsive for a few seconds...it's pretty much the same experience. That's also true of my old Latitude D620 that's had Vista, 7, Mint, Knoppix, and Backtrack before it became Kali. Then again, I've never personally had any kinda good results with AMD CPUs and GPUs under Linux performing to their full potential.

That's not saying Microsoft sucks at making use of hardware because they don't. I'm just saying that in my experience, the underlying hardware and user expectations, even user perceptions that don't actually reflect reality, play a bigger role in how someone feels about their computer than the OS does.


ALSO...Posting in a thread where heatlesssun said he was wrong about something! :eek:

And...Yeah whatever RT. I think very few people will notice RT going away since it was on like one tablet that pretty much no one purchased.
 
cdr_74_premium said:
Oh really? Try this:

- Get a netbook or something with an AMD C-60 processor.
- Install your favorite Linux distro. Use it for a few days.
- Install Windows 7. Use it for a few days.

Let's see if after that you still have the nerve to say that "people working for MS are still that incompetent in making an OS run on hardware which uses less cpu power and less memory".

I hate to burst your bubble, but that's just not true, and it hasn't been for a while.
Click to expand...

That is why most routers run a Linux kernel. My E-350 based netbook has been running Linux for the last 5+ years or so ...

And yes when your new Operating System is Windows 8.1 and you charge money for it you are incompetent when all it does is a "new" user interface and some minor improvements which have next to nothing for the desktop user
 
Pieter3dnow said:
And the point is clearly stated was that MS can't deal with making a kernel lean and mean so what is wrong?

And you are confirming that as a business MS can only sell at a loss to get rid of their stock rather then do something productive and make money. No money no WindowsRT .
Click to expand...

They've been making lean kernels for years. Every OS since vista has gotten faster, smaller and has been available for more devices. You can also look at things like WinPE and MinWin, some which has been around since the XP days to see how small it can be.
 
cdr_74_premium said:
Oh really? Try this:

- Get a netbook or something with an AMD C-60 processor.
- Install your favorite Linux distro. Use it for a few days.
- Install Windows 7. Use it for a few days.

Let's see if after that you still have the nerve to say that "people working for MS are still that incompetent in making an OS run on hardware which uses less cpu power and less memory".

I hate to burst your bubble, but that's just not true, and it hasn't been for a while.
Click to expand...

This is one area where Windows 8.x has improved a lot over prior versions. Through it is difficult to compare Windows 7 to 8.1 on these Bay Trail devices as Windows 7 isn't officially supported on Bay Trail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top