4 ms·

WinRT/WinPhone are not B2B OSes. B2B lives off the ability of a business to deploy their inhouse software that they (or somebody they contracted like Accenture)

by pyalot2 14y ago

WinRT/WinPhone are not B2B OSes. B2B lives off the ability of a business to deploy their inhouse software that they (or somebody they contracted like Accenture) deploys on their infrastructure. A lot of these applications did move to the Intraweb. However Microsoft restricts the choice of web browsers that WinRT/WinPhone users can get, so if IE RT/Phone lack the capability you need, you're out of luck. The WinRT/WinPone strategy is aping 1:1 after the Apple B2C business model. Your "analysis" that this was a B2B solution is spot on wrong.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
- pyalot2 14y ago
  That assumes that a compelling argument can be made that all the legacy stuff you have can be made to work with it. Which it can't. - No application you've written to date will run on it - No application you're now going to write will run on it without uploading it to the app-store and letting everybody else download it. - Your active-directory NT-domain user management will not be able to deal with these machines. - Your own exchange server will not be able to talk to these devices e-mail clients. - Your host of macro-encrusted MS-Office documents will not work on that devices implementation of office. In short, nothing you did up to that point works on them. - It makes porting/supporting these devices extremely cumbersome and expensive - It demonstrates clearly that Microsoft was willing to break their entire backwards compatibility.
  - brudgers 14y ago
    [My deleted post was along the lines that if you need IE6, you're SOL with any Microsoft upgrade path, and that their treatment of IE6 might be construed as an advantage - or disadvantage - when it comes to evaluating Microsoft's commitment to B2B customers] When it comes to legacy application support, Windows RT is not at a disadvantage to iOS or Android. And it's not as if Google Docs is going to handle "macro-encrusted" documents any better. For continuity, I'll repeat here what I have replied elsewhere. Microsoft could kludge RT to work with Exchange and NT-domain management. Or, they could develop those products robustly to meet a future filled with less powerful computing devices and sandboxed operating systems. One is - well, a kludge. The other is a long term strategy.

by pyalot2 14y ago

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

pyalot2 14y ago
That assumes that a compelling argument can be made that all the legacy stuff you have can be made to work with it. Which it can't. - No application you've written to date will run on it - No application you're now going to write will run on it without uploading it to the app-store and letting everybody else download it. - Your active-directory NT-domain user management will not be able to deal with these machines. - Your own exchange server will not be able to talk to these devices e-mail clients. - Your host of macro-encrusted MS-Office documents will not work on that devices implementation of office. In short, nothing you did up to that point works on them. - It makes porting/supporting these devices extremely cumbersome and expensive - It demonstrates clearly that Microsoft was willing to break their entire backwards compatibility.
- brudgers 14y ago
  [My deleted post was along the lines that if you need IE6, you're SOL with any Microsoft upgrade path, and that their treatment of IE6 might be construed as an advantage - or disadvantage - when it comes to evaluating Microsoft's commitment to B2B customers] When it comes to legacy application support, Windows RT is not at a disadvantage to iOS or Android. And it's not as if Google Docs is going to handle "macro-encrusted" documents any better. For continuity, I'll repeat here what I have replied elsewhere. Microsoft could kludge RT to work with Exchange and NT-domain management. Or, they could develop those products robustly to meet a future filled with less powerful computing devices and sandboxed operating systems. One is - well, a kludge. The other is a long term strategy.