Is Windows RT a failure?

[John Kotches]

An article from The Register makes interesting points and cites sales statistics as well.

One of the primary points that I agree with is that it's too expensive which I agree with.

http://m.theregister.co.uk/2013/01/18/7_reasons_windows_rt_was_doa/

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note 2 using Tapatalk 2.x

 

[mike123abc]

I never saw the point of Windows RT. Windows 8 based tablets with intel processors could reach the price of Windows RT based tablets anyways and run full windows. I would not be surprised if it silently died within a year.

 

[harshness]

Everyone but Steve Ballmer seems to understand that Microsoft continues to waste huge amounts of money and resources on trying to reinvent other company's flagship products. It typically doesn't work unless you're someone agile like Samsung.

Microsoft partnered with IBM to make their last big technology leap forward (Windows NT). The rest has largely been window dressing and chasing after someone else's state-of-the-art.

 

[Neutron]

Everyone but Steve Ballmer seems to understand that Microsoft continues to waste huge amounts of money and resources on trying to reinvent other company's flagship products. It typically doesn't work unless you're someone agile like Samsung.

Microsoft partnered with IBM to make their last big technology leap forward (Windows NT). The rest has largely been window dressing and chasing after someone else's state-of-the-art.

Exactly. If they want to improve Windows they need to make it more Unix like and make it more secure. One thing about the Mac OS that I like is the way apps install and run. Microsoft makes it so cumbersome with registry entries and difficulty in uninstalling the app if anything in the registry is horked.

 

[Pepper]

The biggest advantage of Windows is the ability to tweak it to run on just about anything, and the ability to run any "Windows compatible" software out there whether from MS, third-party vendor, or do-it-yourself. As a "Restricted Tablet" version, Windows RT fails in these areas. Take those out and it's just another proprietary closed system.

 

[mike123abc]

Also I found it interesting in the article that to use their tablet in a business you need to buy another office license for commercial use. That has to be one of the lamest licensing policies on record.

 

[John Kotches]

Also I found it interesting in the article that to use their tablet in a business you need to buy another office license for commercial use. That has to be one of the lamest licensing policies on record.

From Microsoft's perspective it is brilliant!

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note 2 using Tapatalk 2.x

 

[mike123abc]

From Microsoft's perspective it is brilliant!

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note 2 using Tapatalk 2.x

True, but all their competition is trying to make it as easy as possible to get their tablets in to businesses to replace desktop PCs. Office on RT is a selling point especially for businesses.

 

[harshness]

The biggest advantage of Windows is the ability to tweak it to run on just about anything, and the ability to run any "Windows compatible" software out there whether from MS, third-party vendor, or do-it-yourself.

Name one piece of available consumer equipment that supports your claim of "run on just about anything". The article clearly states that Windows application software typically doesn't run on Windows RT.

If you're looking for a reference point, Linux runs on just about everything.

Microsoft is closing the door on Itanium support as we speak.

 

[Pepper]

Name one piece of available consumer equipment that supports your claim of "run on just about anything". The article clearly states that Windows application software typically doesn't run on Windows RT.

If you're looking for a reference point, Linux runs on just about everything.

Microsoft is closing the door on Itanium support as we speak.

I meant, and you probably knew I meant, Windows runs on just about anything containing an Intel compatible processor. And my point was that Windows RT is not Windows, because it doesn't run "Windows compatible" software. It's Windows Restricted for Tablets.

Linux is not Windows either.

 

[John Kotches]

I meant, and you probably knew I meant, Windows runs on just about anything containing an Intel compatible processor. And my point was that Windows RT is not Windows, because it doesn't run "Windows compatible" software. It's Windows Restricted for Tablets.

This will be shocking to you -- but the entire world isn't run on Intel CPUs I(including AMD). A lot of stuff runs on Sparc, PowerPC and PA-RISC. Even mainframe.

There used to be much, much more but things have moved away from a rich variety of CPUs.

Linux is not Windows either.

You're right, it's fast, stable and doesn't have reboot as part of its standard support tree.


Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Tapatalk HD

 

[Pepper]

Not shocking at all, also not germane to this discussion. Not many tablets running on Sparc, PowerPC or PA-RISC either.

Speaking of the stability of Linux, the nightly scheduled reboot of my Dish 622 begs to differ.

 

[mike123abc]

Not shocking at all, also not germane to this discussion. Not many tablets running on Sparc, PowerPC or PA-RISC either.

Speaking of the stability of Linux, the nightly scheduled reboot of my Dish 622 begs to differ.

I doubt it is the Linux kernel that is the cause. I bet they still have buggy device drivers and programs running on top causing the problem. Servers can go years between reboots.

 

[harshness]

I meant, and you probably knew I meant, Windows runs on just about anything containing an Intel compatible processor.

There's a huge world of computers and computer-like devices out there that aren't Pentium based. Windows NT doesn't run natively on any of them (except for the aforementioned Itanium machines). You must NOT glob everything under the Intel label as the slates use Intel Atom processors that aren't opcode compatible with the Pentium family.

Windows RT isn't Windows at all and that is the argument the article makes reasonably well.

 

[harshness]

Not many tablets running on Sparc, PowerPC or PA-RISC either.

There would be if those chips were economically viable to build into a tablet. Many devices (your ViP622 included) use RISC processors that are based on the MIPS or ARM platforms. There's all kinds of appliances where it just isn't feasible to run a 65-135 watt processor.

 

[mike123abc]

It is windows ported and recompiled for the ARM instruction set. Just like Linux is recompiled and ported to different processors. If you take a linux binary from an Intel processor to a ARM processor it will not work either.

The confusion is that people expect Windows RT to run any windows program. Instead the programs must be ported and recompiled to the arm platform.

Itanium emulated x86 http://news.cnet.com/2100-1006_3-6028817.html

It would be possible to make an x86 emulator for the ARM platform and get x86 programs to run, but it would be pointless considering the overhead.

 

[Neutron]

It is windows ported and recompiled for the ARM instruction set. Just like Linux is recompiled and ported to different processors. If you take a linux binary from an Intel processor to a ARM processor it will not work either.

The confusion is that people expect Windows RT to run any windows program. Instead the programs must be ported and recompiled to the arm platform.

Itanium emulated x86 http://news.cnet.com/2100-1006_3-6028817.html

It would be possible to make an x86 emulator for the ARM platform and get x86 programs to run, but it would be pointless considering the overhead.

You can't even compare ARM to x86. ARM processors aren't designed with the processing power that x86 chips handle.

 

[John Kotches]

I doubt it is the Linux kernel that is the cause. I bet they still have buggy device drivers and programs running on top causing the problem. Servers can go years between reboots.

Generally my linux/Solaris boxes reboot for kernel patches or hardware issues/upgrades.



Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note 2 using Tapatalk 2.x

 

[John Kotches]

Harshness:

Wasn't there an NT port that ran on DEC's Alpha CPU back in the day when it smoked everything on the planet for single socket performance?

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note 2 using Tapatalk 2.x

 

[mike123abc]

You can't even compare ARM to x86. ARM processors aren't designed with the processing power that x86 chips handle.

When you look at Windows XP launch, the quad core ARM processors are not far from what x86 processors were back then. 2001 had the pentium III at around 1 GHZ and the P4 high end at 1.6 GHZ. Mainstream would have been slower. http://www.intel.com/pressroom/kits/quickrefyr.htm#2001

http://www.nvidia.com/object/tegra-3-processor.html