8 ms·
What is Windows RT? Redmond, we have a problem
- RyanMcGreal 14y agoDirect link to the article: http://www.winsupersite.com/article/windows8/windows-rt-redmond-problem-144554 http://www.winsupersite.com/article/windows8/windows-rt-redm...
- xentronium 14y agoThe site seems to be auto-banned on HN or something, which is surprising to me: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4682525 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4682525
- cooldeal 14y agoIt's because of overzealous flagging of the site because it is a Microsoft watcher site and Paul is usually positive about MS. More details here http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3408883 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3408883 Not very surprising, given the makeup of HN.
- MatthewPhillips 14y agoThey should have licensed the name Metro from Metro AG and called it that. Instead they gave it the same name as their runtime? Seriously? It boggles my mind as to how they didn't anticipate this being confusing.
- dagw 14y agoWhile I certainly agree as such, have you considered that perhaps they tried and Metro AG didn't want to license the name? Metro AG is a pretty huge company with annual revenues that easily match Microsoft's so it's not like MS could just simply buy them off.
- MatthewPhillips 14y agoApple somehow got the more distinctive name iPhone even though there was a voip phone with that exact name (owned by a very big company), yet somehow a grocery store has claimed ownership of a common word in all markets and industries?
- dangrossman 14y agoIt's not a grocery store, it's a €67 billion a year wholesale and retail group with 6 different store chains under its belt including wholesale warehouses, grocery stores, department stores and -- most importantly -- two consumer electronics chains. You could have a Metro-owned store with Metro signs over Android tablets next to a Microsoft store with Metro signs over Surface tablets. The likelihood of confusion that'd create is the very definition of trademark infringement.
- dagw 14y agoThe Linksys iPhone was a fairly insignificant Cisco product and there is some dispute as to what extent they where even using the name before Apple showed an interest in it. Between 2000 and December 2006 they didn't use the name for any product they sold. And the December 2006 Linksys iPhone was a re-branding of an existing product. A cynical person might suspect that Cisco had completely forgotten that they even owned the iPhone trademark until Apple asked to license it and then quickly started to us it again in hopes of winning a bigger settlement.
- mgkimsal 14y agoWhy not just have called it 'Surface OS' or something similar? "Surface looks like Windows, but isn't Windows, just like iOS looks like OSX but isn't OSX" would have been easy to explain, but using the name 'windows' in there confuses the point.
- jiggy2011 14y agoI agree, I have no idea why they keep wanting to cling to the "Windows" branding even though Windows has never exactly been considered a cool brand. Perhaps it is easier to sell something called "Windows" to enterprise customers?
- grhino 14y agoI think MS's most reliable market is Microsoft certified IT professionals. I believe these professionals have also historically determined technology purchasing decisions for companies. It'll be interesting to see how things turn out in the next 5 years.
- bergie 14y agoThe rumor is that the Courier tablet was killed by Ballmer because it wasn't "Windows enough". So maybe the Surface / Windows on Arm / Windows RT team actually wants to get their stuff to the market
- DeepDuh 14y agoA true visionary.
- mtgx 14y agoThat would've been exactly the right strategy in this situation, and the right answer to disruptions. You build something new to compete toe-on-toe with the new disruptive technology, you don't refit the old technology and brand for the new disruptive market, while pissing off all your old customers in the same time. That's always the wrong strategy, and it's just how Nokia tried to refit Symbian for the touch world for 4 years after the iPhone appeared, with no success. They should've left the PC OS alone, and build a different one for tablets and smartphones. Then whoever wants a phone or tablet with Microsoft's OS could've gotten that, and whoever still wanted a PC (the vast majority of people right now) would've gotten an OS made specifically for PC's. But of course they would've needed to charge more reasonable prices for these licenses, too, not the ridiculous $100 amount they charge for a Windows RT license right now. And Microsoft has always been afraid of cannibalizing itself with a cheaper product of their own, even if that product would ultimately be part of a much larger, higher volume market. Either way, they can't go around charging $100-$200 for OS licenses anymore, when there's a vast market of Android devices out there that come with a virtually free OS, and with the increasingly popular Macs that require only $29 for the new version of Mac OS X.
- crag 14y agoYeah, this is gonna be a serious problem for MS. Frankly I can't believe their marketing/PR division is so inept. I hope MS will come up with some kind of "cross-over coupon" for those who brought RT thinking it was a full version of the OS with Office included (which is why people are buying it). Cause if not, there are gonna be some VERY pissed off customers.
- stinos 14y agothe discussion about the meaning of 'PC' underneath the article is pretty hilarious
- tayl0r 14y agoGod, it's infuriating. "Let's not have a discussion about the actual article, let's just argue bullshit semantics about the definition of PC."
- pohl 14y agoIn a sense, though, that discussion is entirely on topic. What Microsoft has done here has been a reaction to Steve Jobs utterance of the phrase "post-pc". They have been frantic to counter that frame ever since, insisting that they can deliver a tablet that is also a PC, with "no compromises". Well, you can't avoid compromises. The best you can do is choose which ones you will accept. And if you don't choose, then unexpected tradeoffs will be thrust upon you. This customer confusion over RT is just fruit from that seed.
- empire29 14y agoIts quite clever how Apple used and popularized the term "post-pc" after a multi-year TV PR campaign (Mac vs PC commercials) drawing a distinct line between PCs (windows machines) and Macs. While I take post-pc to mean Post-Desktop (and possibly laptop), Apple has cleverly separated its Mac personal computer line from "PC"s, allowing it to sound the death knell for Windows PCs, but not for its "delightful" Mac computer line up.
- JonnieCache 14y ago>"Let's not have a discussion about the actual article, let's just argue bullshit semantics" Because that never happens here.
- gvb 14y agoWindows NT stood for "New Technology". Whenever I see Windows RT, I think "Reduced Technology".
- mmariani 14y agoAlso, Retarded Technology fits well. Jokes aside, I won't be developing for the next Windows because WinRT development still looks like a painful process. Edit: fix freaking iPad auto correct typos.
- gvnonor 14y agoWinRT development is actually quite pleasant. You can put together a decent app in very little time using just html and javascript. Deciding what to do with the large screen real estate is challenging though. There's no chrome and the entire screen needs to be filled in with an app's components. Without a designer working, it's very difficult to put together a nice looking app.
- mmariani 14y agoDecent is not enough, it has to be awesome. At least according to my standards. :) On the design challenge I'll give you a tip. Fill the screen with content. If you don't have enough of it, create new views. I'll give you an example: imagine the main output for your app is some tabbed data; instead of showing as it is plot some graphs and add some buttons to flip the view to reveal the data. The key is to think visually.
- cryptoz 14y agoThe Windows 2000 boot screen said "Built on NT Technology". I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw that. So annoying.
- freehunter 14y agoOfficially, NT doesn't stand for anything (just like the RT in Windows RT doesn't stand for anything). One of the NT developers said that it was derived from the target processor, the Intel N-Ten chip. Microsoft marketing declared it "New Technology", but that quickly went away and the official word is that it's just a couple letters thrown together. The "Built on NT technology" boot screen does not mean "Built on New Technology technology".
- rlpb 14y ago"Windows RT is not a computer operating system. Windows RT is an operating system for mobile devices." So mobile devices aren't computers? If this is true, I think this is a major strategic mistake.
- dagw 14y agoAlso are phones "mobile devices"? If so is WP8 the same thing as WindowsRT? if not...what exactly is a mobile device? I (think) I know the answer, but that definition brings up more questions than it tries to answer.
- monk_e_boy 14y agoOh man. I've been a programmer for 15 years. I've used windows on all my PCs and laptops. My SO is after a netbook and I told her to wait and see what the Surface is like. We investigated it and both came to the conclusion that Office wouldn't be supported. We were both wrong? Lol, how do they make it so hard to figure out what it'll support?
- 7952 14y agoSo its a mobile version of Microsoft Office bundled with a tablet computer?
- JimmaDaRustla 14y agoYes, "RT" is a dumb name. But seriously, how is this a problem to consumers? Go to Best Buy, Future Shop, Radio Shack (The Source)...heck, even visit a Microsoft store and ask the "horrific, unexplainable, daunting" question: "What is the difference between Windows RT and Windows? You will "shockingly" get a pretty simple answer: Windows for low-end devices, containing only the new interface and can only run apps available on the marketplace. I think we need to have a little more faith that consumers aren't complete morons, and if this little dilemma causes a major issue...well, it will probably save MS money because consumers will be calling Apple tech support instead. Edit: No complaints yet, but I'm not calling Apple consumers morons - I mean Apple doesn't have the obfuscated product line to confuse consumers.
- codeonfire 14y agoOnce they learn that the only difference is that RT is the same except "feature limited", and that fully unlocked Win 8 tablets are available there will be problems. Yes, tech consumers are not stupid. Can any one at Microsoft explain if non-windows store apps can be installed and can the tablets be wiped of Win RT despite secure boot? If not why wouldn't they get an android tablet that can do those things?
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- freehunter 14y agoSeriously, why not just answer with "Windows RT is Microsoft's tablet OS and Windows 8 is the replacement for Windows 7"? Consumers understand tablets. They understand their limitations. Consumers understand desktops. They know what they're getting into on each platform. It doesn't have to complicated. RT is iOS. 8 is OSX. Maybe the confusion will go away if you relate it to Apple's products?
- JimmaDaRustla 14y agoBecause that is wrong! If you actually spent a moment or two looking at their lineup, you would know that there are tablets that will run full Windows 8. People need to be shaken, this has been the huge motive for Windows 8 all along - full OS on tablets. Windows RT is an unfortunate compromise for ARM processors.
- Aardwolf 14y agoWhat I don't understand is this: If Windows 8 was designed so much for touch that even the desktop version of it shows a touch interface by default, why don't they use Windows 8 on a surface??
- ygra 14y agoThey do, on the Surface Pro. It just comes out a little later, presumably to not clobber hardware vendors' sales. Microsoft has to be very careful in that market since so far they have been (largely) only a supplier of operating systems and software while others built the hardware. Now they risk alienating their former partners (and large customers). So essentially they let Dell, Lenovo, HP, ... have a first go at building and selling tablets that can run the “normal” Windows 8. Surface then is just a reference implementation of sorts – it needs to be good and compelling and show off the platform particularly well. But it shouldn't make big sales (and the price point will probably be chosen to reflect that too) to avoid bad blood between the usual manufacturers and MS.
- brudgers 14y agoMicrosoft isn't rolling out the Windows 8 product line Apple style...tech-journalists, you may quote me on that. Why on Earth would they? They have complex product lines tailored around a B2B strategy. Their customers need time to test the product. There was a "consumer preview" version for download. There was a "Release to Manufacturing" version for download. The nature of their business is to roll out products with no-surprises. Microsoft is releasing the product with fanfare, but minimizing drama. The pile of FUD is built upon an edge cases. People with a library of disks are the exception in the age of the internet. For those who haven't noticed, Macbooks don't come with a DVD drive anymore. I suspect that few people will anticipate running existing Windows software on ARM devices. Most won't. For the same reasons people don't expect to run Photoshop on an iPad or AutoCad on a Windows Phone - most people don't run much on their devices other than what is pre-installed and what they download directly to it. I also suspect that Microsoft has mined it's huge trove of data, and concluded that this is the case.
- fauigerzigerk 14y agoI'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. The issue is that Microsoft is selling the same device with two different operating systems. And one of those operating systems is defined as "cannot run Windows desktop software", yet it is advertised as running MS Office, the epitome of Windows desktop software. Consumers will not expect to run Windows software on ARM devices because they don't know what ARM devices are. What they will expect is that something that is called Windows and comes from Microsoft does indeed run Windows software.
- brudgers 14y agoIt is a strawman. People expect their computers to run Office. They will. People expect their computers to run Facebook. They will. People expect their computers to run email. They will. The Geek Squad will say, "Windows RT is not backward compatible, but it includes Office, Facebook, and email." Mom will get it.
- molmalo 14y ago> The issue is that Microsoft is selling the same device with two different operating systems. Not exactly, both devices may look similar, and be called Surface, but they are two different devices, with very different hardware. That probably makes everything much more complicated.
- ender7 14y agoI think Microsoft could have saved themselves a lot of pain by some renaming and re-skinning. - 'Windows 8' is Microsoft's next version of Windows! It uses the shiny new Metro UI. You install apps from the Windows App Store (or whatever they call it). - 'Windows 8+' is a special version of Windows 8 that can run apps written for older versions of Windows. Both versions of Windows 8 support Office!* * For Windows 8 vanilla, re-skin the Office apps so they look slightly more like Metro, or at least so they don't look like Windows 7 desktop apps. Hide the fact that they're running in the desktop environment. Include Outlook.
- dpcan 14y agoSo, in your description, is Window RT = Windows 8? Or is Windows RT = Windows 8+? I had no idea that if you just bought Windows 8 you couldn't run older software, but had to have RT.... or am I backwards? EDIT: Googled. RT is the restricted version where you can only install apps from the new Windows Store.
- DeepDuh 14y agoHow does that clear up anything? Wouldn't it make more sense to not use the Windows product name at all for the RT version? After all - where are the Windows? Even Apple, with their annoying iBranding, is more bold when it comes to introducing new products. Everything about Microsoft's branding schemes scream committee. "Microsoft(TM) Windows(TM) RT(TM) Surface(TM) tablet with all new Metro/strikethrough Modern/strikethrough new style/strikethrough Microsoft style UI. Do they themselves even know what the design is called now? Even big open source projects are more consistant than this.
- ender7 14y agoMicrosoft has clearly decided that "Windows" is now the new Metro UI. The old stuff is there for backwards-compat and pro/business market reasons, but the future is Metro. Now, you may not like that decision, but I think that's where they're going. Given that, it doesn't make sense to call them two different things since their only differentiating factor is whether they run "old"-style apps.
- scotty79 14y agoI don't see much more confusion than was caused by Windows CE. Why do they insist on calling those "windows"? It's such a loathed brand.
- Aardwolf 14y ago"Windows RT will not run any desktop Windows applications beyond the applications that are bundled with the operating system. Bundled applications include virtually every single desktop application found in Windows 8—Paint, WordPad, etc.—except for Windows Media Player." Ok, this I really, really, do not understand. Playing media is a large use case of mobile devices. Why the heck would they sell a mobile device that cannot play movies?
- moron 14y agoIndeed, it would be crazy to sell a mobile device that can't play video. But what you quoted doesn't say that -- it says that Windows Media Player does not run in the "desktop mode" of this device.
- joenathan 14y agoThere is a Metro media player via Xbox Music and Xbox Video, of which there is no desktop counterpart in RT just Metro versions.