Microsoft Not Giving Up on Windows RT

[CommanderFrank]

Despite the rumors to the contrary, Microsoft has no plans to abandon Windows RT just quite yet. Rumors about the possibility of Microsoft ‘merging’ Windows RT with the soon to be released Windows Blue have since proved to be unfounded according to sources at Microsoft.

"It 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."

 

[bigdogchris]

The ARM technology isn't the problem. It's Microsoft and their backwards thinking, lets do one product across all platforms, that is the problem. No one else in the consumer market does this for a reason.

Microsoft wanted to skip the consumer 'warm up' to RT and try to sell us a product and tell us that it's better to be unified, rather than for us to see it with our own eyes. Where is the non-Microsoft sponsored news were a company is yelling from the rooftop that they are embracing the unified OS across their platforms? I don't see it.

This is how they should of launched Windows 8:

1. Windows RT should of been Windows 8 without desktop mode, just touch UI. There should of been no x86 tablet version.
2. Windows 8 on desktop should of been what is is now without Start Screen.

You now have a product lineup that where one bad reputation will not affect the other because they are two different products. You also have solved the horrible reputation that 8 on desktops developed, which does affect Windows 8/RT sales across the board.

RT as it's own product could of been the start of Microsoft's very own iOS which is the market they want.

 

[CreepyUncleGoogle]

No huge surprise there. That'd be a lot of development costs to simply throw away after a year. Microsoft has historically run products for two major iterations before giving up on them if they're not profitable. Their routers and networking equipment are a fine example of that philospohy. See MN-500 and MN-700 base stations.

 

[ManofGod]

The ARM technology isn't the problem. It's Microsoft and their backwards thinking, lets do one product across all platforms, that is the problem. No one else in the consumer market does this for a reason.

Microsoft wanted to skip the consumer 'warm up' to RT and try to sell us a product and tell us that it's better to be unified, rather than for us to see it with our own eyes. Where is the non-Microsoft sponsored news were a company is yelling from the rooftop that they are embracing the unified OS across their platforms? I don't see it.

This is how they should of launched Windows 8:

1. Windows RT should of been Windows 8 without desktop mode, just touch UI. There should of been no x86 tablet version.
2. Windows 8 on desktop should of been what is is now without Start Screen.

You now have a product lineup that where one bad reputation will not affect the other because they are two different products. You also have solved the horrible reputation that 8 on desktops developed, which does affect Windows 8/RT sales across the board.

RT as it's own product could of been the start of Microsoft's very own iOS which is the market they want.

Then I would not have bought a tablet at all. (They are only good if you can do real work on them.) As far as Windows 8 having no Start screen, it would have been pretty much same old, same old and would have taken them down the path of RIM.

 

[Ashbringer]

The ARM technology isn't the problem. It's Microsoft and their backwards thinking, lets do one product across all platforms, that is the problem. No one else in the consumer market does this for a reason.

The problem with RT was that it's locked down compared to x86 Windows 8, and isn't compatible with x86 applications. As we all know, the Windows store has tons of applications to choose from, and growing.

Windows RT was just really bad guild lines, which just screw over the consumer. In comparison to Android, which is open and has boat loads of apps. Not to forget that the tablets for Android don't have to pay Google a fee, like they would with RT.

This is how they should of launched Windows 8:

1. Windows RT should of been Windows 8 without desktop mode, just touch UI. There should of been no x86 tablet version.
2. Windows 8 on desktop should of been what is is now without Start Screen.

You now have a product lineup that where one bad reputation will not affect the other because they are two different products. You also have solved the horrible reputation that 8 on desktops developed, which does affect Windows 8/RT sales across the board.

RT as it's own product could of been the start of Microsoft's very own iOS which is the market they want.

Microsoft knows this damn well, but wanted to use their market presence to pressure people into this unified Windows system. Anyone can see that Metro should have been it's own separate OS. They wanted to force consumers to adopt this setup, or fuck off. Apparently, majority of customers are fucking off.

You want a computer, then either get Windows 7, or try your darn best to make Windows 8 look like 7. Want a tablet, then go Android or Apple. This is what people are doing today, and are likely not to change anytime soon.

 

[ManofGod]

The problem with RT was that it's locked down compared to x86 Windows 8, and isn't compatible with x86 applications. As we all know, the Windows store has tons of applications to choose from, and growing.

Windows RT was just really bad guild lines, which just screw over the consumer. In comparison to Android, which is open and has boat loads of apps. Not to forget that the tablets for Android don't have to pay Google a fee, like they would with RT.



Microsoft knows this damn well, but wanted to use their market presence to pressure people into this unified Windows system. Anyone can see that Metro should have been it's own separate OS. They wanted to force consumers to adopt this setup, or fuck off. Apparently, majority of customers are fucking off.

You want a computer, then either get Windows 7, or try your darn best to make Windows 8 look like 7. Want a tablet, then go Android or Apple. This is what people are doing today, and are likely not to change anytime soon.

I find that if they had split it, I would not have bought it. Otherwise, tablets are just expensive toys. I want a computer and Windows 8 works great on it. Please stop making your opinions out to be facts.

 

[pxc]

WinRT should have been stripped down even more. It's nearly as bloated as full Windows, without the benefit that full Windows has: massive software backwards compatibility.

iOS and Android space and CPU requirements (both pretty low) and are something MS should have paid much attention to. It's economical to sell sub-$100 or much better $250 Android devices, and Apple can even sell a sub-$200 (16GB) iOS device. WinRT: bloated pig with small software selection: starting at $500 and more often selling at $800. Runs on 3 selected ARM processors.

By the time MS stops trying to micro-manage a Windows RT environment (yay, low resolution screens), Apple will update the iPad mini and release another iPad with even better specs than the prior one, which Windows RT doesn't have a prayer competing against.

Just kill off RT and offer better Windows 8 pricing on Atom tablets coming later this year.

 

[dagamer34]

Everyone wanted Metro to be its own OS and Windows 8 to be Windows 7++. I am officially calling that the "RIM strategy". Why? Because it doesn't change your core product and your new product would attract zero developers, leaving it to either on the vine.

Everyone should know why they did what they did. And if you were ACTUALLY in their shoes, I'm not convinced you would have made a different choice (lest you want to commit corporate suicide). Please do not forget that businesses prioritize doing what is best for them over what's best for their customer and 95-99% of the time, those interests align. But that remaining 1-4% of decisions that customers don't like isn't because they want to be straight up dicks to customers, they just have an agenda. You stick Metro in its own OS, you get no developers, you get no apps, and it's dead. You put an option for most people to skip the Start Screen, you get fewer downloads, developers don't get money, ecosystem is dead. You rip Metro out of Windows 8, you get Windows 7++, you lose telling developers your platform will have 350 million users in a year, no developers, no apps, dead. See a pattern?

Even extremely hated cable companies do nice things in a while too (Comcast just doubled my speed for free). Companies have agendas, but few are straight up dicks.

 

[dagamer34]

WinRT should have been stripped down even more. It's nearly as bloated as full Windows, without the benefit that full Windows has: massive software backwards compatibility.

iOS and Android space and CPU requirements (both pretty low) and are something MS should have paid much attention to. It's economical to sell sub-$100 or much better $250 Android devices, and Apple can even sell a sub-$200 (16GB) iOS device. WinRT: bloated pig with small software selection: starting at $500 and more often selling at $800. Runs on 3 selected ARM processors.

By the time MS stops trying to micro-manage a Windows RT environment (yay, low resolution screens), Apple will update the iPad mini and release another iPad with even better specs than the prior one, which Windows RT doesn't have a prayer competing against.

Just kill off RT and offer better Windows 8 pricing on Atom tablets coming later this year.

Windows RT is acts as a hedge on Intel Atom pricing. If it didn't exist, their chips would be $50 (what they were selling for in netbook days) instead of $25. Which in actual product terms is a $50 more expensive product to maintain margins.

 

[heatlesssun]

The ARM technology isn't the problem. It's Microsoft and their backwards thinking, lets do one product across all platforms, that is the problem. No one else in the consumer market does this for a reason.

The main reason no one else has leveraged a desktop OS on tablets that on the market to this point is because no one else has a desktop OS anywhere near as valuable as Windows is to Microsoft. If the market is trending to tablets and away from desktops it doesn't make sense for Microsoft to keep its most valuable OS asset desktop only confined to a shrinking market.

And Microsoft now has company, Ubuntu is also being leveraged on tablets and phones though the approach is different.

 

[BladeVenom]

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein

 

[Jagger100]

And Microsoft now has company, Ubuntu is also being leveraged on tablets and phones though the approach is different.

More like Ubuntu now has company in terms of plan. Conical just doesn't have MS budget.

Although Ubuntu isn't quite as bad understanding the Apple implied ecosystem concept. The analogy is this. A healthy ecosystem has grass, water buffaloes and lions. Microsoft's idea of an ecosystem is 3 different sizes of water buffaloes.

Conical is perhaps somewhere in between the two examples. Their newest mobile UI's do diverge somewhat. And Linux' ability to be lightweight doesn't create the complexity of needing to invent a whole new API to streamline the OS to run on a tablet. Or at least that's what they're betting on.

 

[Metrocall]

I find that if they had split it, I would not have bought it. Otherwise, tablets are just expensive toys. I want a computer and Windows 8 works great on it. Please stop making your opinions out to be facts.

And that's what I find interesting, the reason you bought it is the reason I didn't. The question is, are there more people like you or I?

 

[Stoly]

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein

Clearly he never used windows

 

[odditory]

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein

"Lest anyone think Einstein ever actually said that." -Al Michaels

The quote is internet-borne bullcrap, nobody said it.

 

[DeathFromBelow]

I find that if they had split it, I would not have bought it. Otherwise, tablets are just expensive toys.

Tablets are expensive toys. My tablet is the bed/toilet computer for reading.

Beyond that, I don't use Metro at all on the tablet. I do everything on the desktop. Classic Shell with big buttons makes the start menu perfectly usable. The Windows app store is a joke. If there was some Metro app I wanted to run Classic Shell lets me run them right from the Start Menu.

Windows RT should have been a separate product. The Tablet UI could have been included as an app for Windows 8.

 

[Ashbringer]

I find that if they had split it, I would not have bought it. Otherwise, tablets are just expensive toys. I want a computer and Windows 8 works great on it. Please stop making your opinions out to be facts.

Microsoft could have done Windows 8 differently.

#1 Make two operating systems. One for tablets, and one for desktops.
#2 Make one OS, but with the option to enable or disable tablet like functions.

But, that makes too much sense. Instead they literally are forcing their customers to use the new Metro UI. Cause we all know if they did it any differently, then the new tablet UI would never get developer support. Therefore, no one would ever use the tablet OS. Android wins the tablet OS wars, and Microsoft loses out.

So far, nobody I know who has Windows 8 likes it. These aren't people who are tech savy. We're talking about people who can barely turn door knobs here.

And that's what I find interesting, the reason you bought it is the reason I didn't. The question is, are there more people like you or I?

I swear, the only people who like Windows 8 are either working for Microsoft, or have stock in Microsoft.

 

[dr.kevin]

so this is pretty much admission that RT is a fail ?

 

[dagamer34]

Microsoft could have done Windows 8 differently.

#1 Make two operating systems. One for tablets, and one for desktops.
#2 Make one OS, but with the option to enable or disable tablet like functions.

But, that makes too much sense. Instead they literally are forcing their customers to use the new Metro UI. Cause we all know if they did it any differently, then the new tablet UI would never get developer support. Therefore, no one would ever use the tablet OS. Android wins the tablet OS wars, and Microsoft loses out.

So far, nobody I know who has Windows 8 likes it. These aren't people who are tech savy. We're talking about people who can barely turn door knobs here.


I swear, the only people who like Windows 8 are either working for Microsoft, or have stock in Microsoft.

Why would developers work on this mythical tablet-only OS which no one has bought with zero install base when the iPad has sold 100 million units? I have yet to hear a competent answer to that question

 

[odditory]

Microsoft could have done Windows 8 differently.

#1 Make two operating systems. One for tablets, and one for desktops.
#2 Make one OS, but with the option to enable or disable tablet like functions.

But, that makes too much sense. Instead they literally are forcing their customers to use the new Metro UI. Cause we all know if they did it any differently, then the new tablet UI would never get developer support.

Bingo. The irony is, they're still getting no developer support, because developers recognize that just because someones got Windows 8 doesn't mean they're using Metro - especially when factoring people are paying money to get AWAY from metro with jailbreaks like start menu replacements.

So in the end, rather than the O/S simply auto-detecting and/or suggesting the interface type at bootup based on whether youve got touch capable hardware connected and then letting the metro store build organically, all they've done is alienated millions of longtime windows users that are now going to ignore metro and metro apps out of spite.

 

[Cerulean]

Never give up Microsoft.

 

[DW-UK]

You are probably better of with Ubuntu.

 

[Spire3660]

Then I would not have bought a tablet at all. (They are only good if you can do real work on them.) As far as Windows 8 having no Start screen, it would have been pretty much same old, same old and would have taken them down the path of RIM.

They are already there. Android and Linux are going to consume MS's marketshare if they dont change soon. Unless they radically revise how they license their software, it will be impossible to stem the bleeding. I just built a Win7 DVR and the software license was 25% the cost of the entire hardware build. Not going to work in the era of super cheap hardware and everyone else giving the OS away. As an aside i built it as a secondary DVR so i can work on converting my main one to Myth TV.

 

[Spire3660]

Tablets are expensive toys. My tablet is the bed/toilet computer for reading.

Beyond that, I don't use Metro at all on the tablet. I do everything on the desktop. Classic Shell with big buttons makes the start menu perfectly usable. The Windows app store is a joke. If there was some Metro app I wanted to run Classic Shell lets me run them right from the Start Menu.

Windows RT should have been a separate product. The Tablet UI could have been included as an app for Windows 8.

A tablet is not an expensive toy. Its a step to ubiquitous computing. Its the ultimate remote control, its just not a good workstation replacement, which is where your derision arises. Keep calling them toys as those around you use them to change the definition of what work on a computer is.

 

[Wrench00]

Who really cares if MS doesn't give up on RT.. Looks like consumers have. I don't give a shit how great you think your product is if no one buys it.

 

[Wrench00]

A tablet is not an expensive toy. Its a step to ubiquitous computing. Its the ultimate remote control, its just not a good workstation replacement, which is where your derision arises. Keep calling them toys as those around you use them to change the definition of what work on a computer is.

Obviously you have never tried to work for prolonged amount of time on a tablet. What you can do on a tablet I can do on a workstation or laptop hundred fold faster.

 

[Kueller]

Everyone wanted Metro to be its own OS and Windows 8 to be Windows 7++. I am officially calling that the "RIM strategy". Why? Because it doesn't change your core product and your new product would attract zero developers, leaving it to either on the vine.

Everyone should know why they did what they did. And if you were ACTUALLY in their shoes, I'm not convinced you would have made a different choice (lest you want to commit corporate suicide). Please do not forget that businesses prioritize doing what is best for them over what's best for their customer and 95-99% of the time, those interests align. But that remaining 1-4% of decisions that customers don't like isn't because they want to be straight up dicks to customers, they just have an agenda. You stick Metro in its own OS, you get no developers, you get no apps, and it's dead. You put an option for most people to skip the Start Screen, you get fewer downloads, developers don't get money, ecosystem is dead. You rip Metro out of Windows 8, you get Windows 7++, you lose telling developers your platform will have 350 million users in a year, no developers, no apps, dead. See a pattern?

Even extremely hated cable companies do nice things in a while too (Comcast just doubled my speed for free). Companies have agendas, but few are straight up dicks.

Let me spin you another option: Win8 RT with the metro UI for tablet apps...and a remote desktop. You could either have it hosted on MS's cloud, or as a touch-friendly remote desktop connection to your home/work PC. Win8 PC would thus remain focused around doing work on the classic desktop w/start button, but still give you the option to use your favorite Metro Apps on your PC. I like this strategy because it pushes people either into an MS hosted virtual desktop subscription ($$ every month), or encourages them to maintain home PC's (with another copy of Win8 PC installed) that they now have convenient access to right from their tablets. The fact that it keeps the PC desktop productivity centric, and the tablet consumption focused is just an added bonus.

 

[Wrench00]

Let me spin you another option: Win8 RT with the metro UI for tablet apps...and a remote desktop. You could either have it hosted on MS's cloud, or as a touch-friendly remote desktop connection to your home/work PC. Win8 PC would thus remain focused around doing work on the classic desktop w/start button, but still give you the option to use your favorite Metro Apps on your PC. I like this strategy because it pushes people either into an MS hosted virtual desktop subscription ($$ every month), or encourages them to maintain home PC's (with another copy of Win8 PC installed) that they now have convenient access to right from their tablets. The fact that it keeps the PC desktop productivity centric, and the tablet consumption focused is just an added bonus.

Your smoking crack. It costs tons of money for VDI. Do you think MS is gone blow a billion dollars when people are to fucking cheap to buy a 300 dollar laptop. you think they will pay 120 dollars a year maybe more?

This Microsoft computing utopia will never EVER going to happen.

 

[Kueller]

Your smoking crack. It costs tons of money for VDI. Do you think MS is gone blow a billion dollars when people are to fucking cheap to buy a 300 dollar laptop. you think they will pay 120 dollars a year maybe more?

This Microsoft computing utopia will never EVER going to happen.

They don't seem to have a problem paying $1k+ a year for pocket size computers...err smartphones.

 

[heatlesssun]

Let me spin you another option: Win8 RT with the metro UI for tablet apps...and a remote desktop. You could either have it hosted on MS's cloud, or as a touch-friendly remote desktop connection to your home/work PC. Win8 PC would thus remain focused around doing work on the classic desktop w/start button, but still give you the option to use your favorite Metro Apps on your PC. I like this strategy because it pushes people either into an MS hosted virtual desktop subscription ($$ every month), or encourages them to maintain home PC's (with another copy of Win8 PC installed) that they now have convenient access to right from their tablets. The fact that it keeps the PC desktop productivity centric, and the tablet consumption focused is just an added bonus.

You can already do all of this today, remote into a desktop from a tablet, a tablet from a desktop, it's all there in the box of Windows 8 Pro except the Start Button/Menu.

 

[Ghettobox]

They don't seem to have a problem paying $1k+ a year for pocket size computers...err smartphones.

You can't be this obtuse on accident. I mean MS trying to do mobile like they are is a joke. It's not even an close and it won't be. No one wants a Windows phone or a tablet cause they are utter shit for what a tablet/phone is used for. And before you attempt some canard of saying "that's your opinion" have a look at sales numbers. There is no mobile war for MS, a war implies you might win. It's a butchering plain and simple. Accept it and move on from your tribalism mentality of some mythical MS "win" in this market. They have sat idly on their old business model while others have come along and pushed them further and further into irrelevancy quarter after quarter. They have neither the vision necessary to compete nor the ability despite their bankroll, and it's more the pity for consumers.

 

[RADRaze2KX]

lets do one product across all platforms, that is the problem. No one else in the consumer market does this for a reason.

Does this statement omit Apple products for a reason?

iPod Nano = Mini iPod
iPod = iPhone with no Phone
iPhone = Mini iPad Mini
iPad Mini = Mini iPad
iPad = touch-friendly Macbook

????

 

[heatlesssun]

And before you attempt some canard of saying "that's your opinion" have a look at sales numbers.

Publicly we really don't have sales numbers for much beyond the Surface devices in the Windows 8/RT space. I'll concede that Surface RT and Windows RT don't look to be doing that well but the Surface Pro seems to be doing a good bit better when you consider its price. I've not seen anything in the way of sales data for OEM Windows 8 tablets.

 

[Ashbringer]

Why would developers work on this mythical tablet-only OS which no one has bought with zero install base when the iPad has sold 100 million units? I have yet to hear a competent answer to that question

The same way game consoles do it. Sell it at a loss, and make sure to have software available at launch. Microsoft is expecting to make a 30% take of anything sold on their app store. Microsoft is a software company right? They have access to tons of software they could just put on the app store. Include a free copy of Office with each OS sold.

As it is right now Windows 8 is essentially killing off both an established PC market, and a tablet market they never had a chance in. Microsoft will probably make Windows 9 within a year or two, which will probably have the option to disable or enable the tablet features. Even though it'll just be Windows 8 with these tweaks. Then people will never remember Windows 8, besides it being a joke. That's what happened with Vista and Windows 7, essentially.

The question is, can Microsoft do this before people seriously consider using Linux? It hasn't gotten to that point, yet.

 

[Ghettobox]

Publicly we really don't have sales numbers for much beyond the Surface devices in the Windows 8/RT space. I'll concede that Surface RT and Windows RT don't look to be doing that well but the Surface Pro seems to be doing a good bit better when you consider its price. I've not seen anything in the way of sales data for OEM Windows 8 tablets.

Unlike most of the Win8 proponents I think you at least try to see the other side sometimes.

As such sales, per bloomberg

Obviously it's an abysmal failure at this point. I'm inclined to believe Surface Pro sales are eating into the Apple/Android market is wishcasting. If anything they are eating ultrabook's lunch. Obviously reasonable people can disagree about that statement.

 

[heatlesssun]

Unlike most of the Win8 proponents I think you at least try to see the other side sometimes.

As such sales, per bloomberg

Obviously it's an abysmal failure at this point. I'm inclined to believe Surface Pro sales are eating into the Apple/Android market is wishcasting. If anything they are eating ultrabook's lunch. Obviously reasonable people can disagree about that statement.

I'm just trying to look at things objectively. There's nothing here that I've not already said. Windows RT isn't doing well agreed. Abysmal failure is over hyping it a bit I'd say, that's still a million devices that Microsoft didn't sell last year.

And while I understand that Surface RT seems to be selling at about only half of projections, what about the Pro? 400k in one month for a $1k device is an abysmal failure? Really?

Ok, but if Microsoft could sell 400k Surface Pros a month, and I know that's not probably going to happen, but if they could, I really don't see Microsoft calling an additional $4 billion a year in revenue an abysmal failure unless the cost of the Surface Pro line exceeded that.

Again, just trying to look at it objectively and everything I'm saying here is more than reasonable.

 

[Kueller]

You can already do all of this today, remote into a desktop from a tablet, a tablet from a desktop, it's all there in the box of Windows 8 Pro except the Start Button/Menu.

That's kind of the point...The functionality is mostly there already, it's just a matter of how the features are presented. MS seems to be trying to push users into a mobile-centric ecosystem with Metro. My idea was to move the other direction, towards a desktop-PC focused ecosystem, that Win8 RT makes available to the user even when mobile.

You can't be this obtuse on accident. I mean MS trying to do mobile like they are is a joke. It's not even an close and it won't be. No one wants a Windows phone or a tablet cause they are utter shit for what a tablet/phone is used for. And before you attempt some canard of saying "that's your opinion" have a look at sales numbers. There is no mobile war for MS, a war implies you might win. It's a butchering plain and simple. Accept it and move on from your tribalism mentality of some mythical MS "win" in this market. They have sat idly on their old business model while others have come along and pushed them further and further into irrelevancy quarter after quarter. They have neither the vision necessary to compete nor the ability despite their bankroll, and it's more the pity for consumers.

You're not making sense. I never endorsed MS doing mobile like they are.

It seems like you had a rant typed up and just really really wanted to post it.

 

[heatlesssun]

That's kind of the point...The functionality is mostly there already, it's just a matter of how the features are presented. MS seems to be trying to push users into a mobile-centric ecosystem with Metro. My idea was to move the other direction, towards a desktop-PC focused ecosystem, that Win8 RT makes available to the user even when mobile.

Again already there. We can debate the efficiency of Windows 8 on the desktop, for plenty of people is that Windows 8 with the default Metro UI just isn't that different from Windows 7 from a desktop perspective.

The question is can Microsoft improve the integration of the new UI into the desktop and can new tablet and touch hardware to make the current debate about desktop less relevant.

 

[bigdogchris]

Then I would not have bought a tablet at all. (They are only good if you can do real work on them.) As far as Windows 8 having no Start screen, it would have been pretty much same old, same old and would have taken them down the path of RIM.

heatlesssun always tells us that Microsoft wants to get into the growing tablet market, which to me is an entertainment market. I like your post because you prove my point that in most cases tablets are a consumption device, not a production device. That means they should be separate. I don't want them to be the same and neither does everyone who hasn't been buying Windows 8, which is most of us.

The problem with RT was that it's locked down compared to x86 Windows 8, and isn't compatible with x86 applications.

My argument continues with this post.

Microsoft handcuffed themselves with the unified approach. Rather than making WindowsRT it's own OS that is truly a tablet OS they made some hybrid POS.

heatlesssun, Microsoft is not wrong for wanting to get into the tablet OS. Their approach is totally wrong about it, though. You pointed out Ubuntu. Their OS looks and feels like Ubuntu Unify but they are not forcing the same OS on both tablet users and desktop OS users. It's familiar, but still different. MacOSX and iOS is similar in some ways and feels familiar but they are not the same OS because they are different devices.

Either a unified OS is the right way to do it or it's the wrong way to do it. No one else but Microsoft has done it, and the unified OS has failed. You said that Microsoft is the only company that has an important enough OS and that is the main problem. The Windows OS has such an impact and is so important that I don't think you should experiment with it. Microsoft wanted to use their clout to force their way into the tablet market. Windows 8 is a fraud.

So let me ask this question. If a unified OS is the right way to do it why is no one else doing it?

 

[heatlesssun]

heatlesssun always tells us that Microsoft wants to get into the growing tablet market, which to me is an entertainment market. I like your post because you prove my point that in most cases tablets are a consumption device, not a production device. That means they should be separate. I don't want them to be the same and neither does everyone who hasn't been buying Windows 8, which is most of us.

But PCs have been used for both productive and consumptive purposes forever. This after all a site which is primarily dedicated to PC gaming hardware, hardly the typical productive activity found in the enterprise.

Most PC users were never just going to go out and buy Windows 8 computers or upgrade to it in only five months no matter how 8 turned out. Five months after 7's release, far more people were still on XP.

So let me ask this question. If a unified OS is the right way to do it why is no one else doing it?

The answer to this is simple. Microsoft has a desktop OS with something in the neighborhood of 90% desktop market share. iOS was on phones with large market share and Apple used it for tablets. A more natural fit on tablets sure, but why would they have used OS X with much less market penetration than iOS? And Google doesn't even have a desktop OS per se, unless you count Chrome OS.