3 ms·

It is bizarre really. Apple managed to keep OSX running even in their transition from PowerPC to Intel, not sure why Microsoft decided to split Windows up quite

by nwh 13y ago

It is bizarre really. Apple managed to keep OSX running even in their transition from PowerPC to Intel, not sure why Microsoft decided to split Windows up quite so badly.

jevinskie 13y ago
All of windows is there, including win32. Only MS apps like office can use it though.
- Touche 13y ago
  That makes the restriction odd to me. If they ported win32, then why are they not allowing 3rd parties to use it? There are only a few of possibilities to me: 1) They want to influence developers into doing new WinRT apps. 2) They are trying to keep good relations with Intel. 3) They want an explanation for why some popular software doesn't run on the arm tablets and saying it can't is easier than saying it "just doesn't".
nightski 13y ago
Well for Apple it was a transition. Microsoft is not "transitioning" to ARM, but rather supporting it side by side.
Jare 13y ago
Apple did split OSX and iOS in much more profound ways than MS did with Windows & RT. But as usual lately, Microsoft did a terrible job with their branding, PR and product strategy, despite the underlying idea being great.
- nwh 13y ago
  I would liken it more to the OSX PPC > Intel transition than between OSX > iOS, though both did involve porting a whole operating system to a new processor architecture. In the case of iOS, Apple had a fresh start so there was no need for inter-compatibility between mobile and desktop apps, so no transition layer was ever created. For PPC > Intel, they created Rosetta (an emulation layer that allowed the older apps to run) in order to smooth the transition, and make it somewhat transparent to the user. This was a win by all measures, users got a completely different underlying system that was faster and more power efficient, and they never had to think about it; that's not to say it wasn't slow, but it wasn't something you had to think about. Microsoft really should have taken the route Apple did, it's the same OS on new hardware that needs an emulation layer to run old apps- and that's alright until there's native builds of the most common suite. The fact that it was barely ever mentioned in Apple's transition says that it worked, and the constant confusion RT causes shows that Microsofts didn't.

by nwh 13y ago

It is bizarre really. Apple managed to keep OSX running even in their transition from PowerPC to Intel, not sure why Microsoft decided to split Windows up quite so badly.

jevinskie 13y ago

All of windows is there, including win32. Only MS apps like office can use it though.

Touche 13y ago
That makes the restriction odd to me. If they ported win32, then why are they not allowing 3rd parties to use it? There are only a few of possibilities to me: 1) They want to influence developers into doing new WinRT apps. 2) They are trying to keep good relations with Intel. 3) They want an explanation for why some popular software doesn't run on the arm tablets and saying it can't is easier than saying it "just doesn't".

nightski 13y ago

Well for Apple it was a transition. Microsoft is not "transitioning" to ARM, but rather supporting it side by side.

Jare 13y ago

Apple did split OSX and iOS in much more profound ways than MS did with Windows & RT. But as usual lately, Microsoft did a terrible job with their branding, PR and product strategy, despite the underlying idea being great.

nwh 13y ago
I would liken it more to the OSX PPC > Intel transition than between OSX > iOS, though both did involve porting a whole operating system to a new processor architecture. In the case of iOS, Apple had a fresh start so there was no need for inter-compatibility between mobile and desktop apps, so no transition layer was ever created. For PPC > Intel, they created Rosetta (an emulation layer that allowed the older apps to run) in order to smooth the transition, and make it somewhat transparent to the user. This was a win by all measures, users got a completely different underlying system that was faster and more power efficient, and they never had to think about it; that's not to say it wasn't slow, but it wasn't something you had to think about. Microsoft really should have taken the route Apple did, it's the same OS on new hardware that needs an emulation layer to run old apps- and that's alright until there's native builds of the most common suite. The fact that it was barely ever mentioned in Apple's transition says that it worked, and the constant confusion RT causes shows that Microsofts didn't.