The crux of Windows RT devises.

[SEANT]

The main motivation for creating this thread was to understand how Windows RT may be positioned in Microsoft’s computing lineup, the type of user likely to have regular access, and the type/size of devise.

I agree that the current RT direction is towards smaller devises. It look like the current ARM/ATOM formats will flip. The Atoms will dominate the 8+”, the ARM focusing on the <8. If that were true then the Surface 2 may be the last of a breed. How would we feel about that?

Let’s say that is not necessarily the case.

As competent as the RT is, and as much as I see the intrinsic value (lighter footprint, higher security), I still think Microsoft needs to fortify Windows RT’s (10") reason for being. The sense of excitement I referred to in my original post leads me to believe that Microsoft has a few fortification ideas up their sleeves. Something more than Gemini, as that provides the same benefit to “Atom.”

I’ll dispense with further speculation. Let me ask a few questions, though. Are the ARM advantages reason enough to make a similar, future upgrade? Would some additional advantage be required for staying the course, and forgoing the versatility of the Pro “Atom” types? If so, what might Microsoft do to provide that additional advantage?

 

[kristalsoldier]

This is the critical issue isn't it? The design of Win 8 raises questions about the RT variant immediately principally because RT is a subset of Win 8, which further implies that what works on the RT must also work on Win 8, which poses an existential question to RT upfront. In other words, why opt for an RT device if you can get a Win 8 device (assuming it is possible to have one with the Surface 2's profile)? Talking about a more secure environment (RT) is not enough. And, this is where MS has been facing a lot of flak and, as far as I can see, they have not yet managed to deliver a convincing response to this.

Users like me, and arguably, the OP etc. are not very good examples to use to further the argument in favour of RT. Why? Because we have spent the time to work out what our needs are and our assessment leads us to conclude that the feature set provided by RT satisfies us. But the more important question is whether the average buyer whose main considerations are the form factor and pure functionality invest so much time and attention to work things out? I'd wager that is not the case.

So, this is one problem. MS is trying, if I am to believe all the commentaries that I read, to unify mobile devices. Note how I said mobile devices and not phones and tablets. Of course, laptops can, arguably, co-constitute mobile devices and it raises another set of uncomfortable questions, but we will leave that aside for a moment. RT makes sense as a unifying OS for mobile devices and the first step to that is to have a unified Windows App store (dedicated to mobile devices), which I believe is on the cards. At this point, RT will have to leave behind the desktop environment for good and the way to achieve that is Office Gemini (which is probably the major, if not the only, reason for the existence of the desktop mode in RT). But this also brings up the question of the proper Win 8 OS meant for full-featured devices (desktops - which are a dying breed; laptops etc.). Here the case for the desktop environment is very strong and the Modern UI space is much weaker. And herein, I think, lies much of the critique that MS has faced with the release of Win 8 (with the Modern UI front face).

The question then stands: Does a desktop machine (including laptops) actually need the Modern UI face? In the short-term, the answer is undeniably 'no'. In the long-term, perhaps. But the latter instance presume a very different work-related environment where much
of the major work can be done over a robust cloud infrastructure and through apps, which is not the case today.

In essence, this is where MS's problem lies. Perversely, Win 8 is probably too futuristic. Ideally, what they should have probably done is to have release RT OS on the Surface and replaced Win Phone 8 OS (by 2014) with it. At the same time, they should have kept the Start Screen on the full-featured Win 8 OS muted and in the background only to be called up with active user participation. In other words, the Modern UI overlay should have been specific to mobile devices. As the field and infrastructure would have matured, they could have progressively brought forward the Modern UI interface on desktop machines. Notice that despite trashing Win 8, most reviewers and user have almost uniformly commented how rock-solid Win 8 is as an OS. MS should have capitalized on this.

Now, to the specific question about BayTrail and other such SoCs. Well, if the above would have been done, then the wind would have been taken out of the sails of Atom and BayTrail chips. Why? Because they would have had to compete with full-featured laptops and desktop devices, where they would have failed. Against ARM, they still have a competitive advantage if only in terms of providing the ability to work on the full-featured Win 8 OS.

At this point I am not sure how MS can recover from this situation. In other words, I wonder how MS can fend of the threat that BayTrail and Atom chips pose to the RT OS.

 

[SEANT]

. . . .

In essence, this is where MS's problem lies. Perversely, Win 8 is probably too futuristic. Ideally, what they should have probably done is to have release RT OS on the Surface and replaced Win Phone 8 OS (by 2014) with it. At the same time, they should have kept the Start Screen on the full-featured Win 8 OS muted and in the background only to be called up with active user participation. In other words, the Modern UI overlay should have been specific to mobile devices. As the field and infrastructure would have matured, they could have progressively brought forward the Modern UI interface on desktop machines. Notice that despite trashing Win 8, most reviewers and user have almost uniformly commented how rock-solid Win 8 is as an OS. MS should have capitalized on this.

. . . .

I agree, that progression sounds like it would have been more palatable across the board.

. . . . what might Microsoft do to provide that additional advantage?

Here is my take on a possible RT advantage.

There are numerous descriptive words applied to tablets. Consumption devise, Companion devise. And, as I said earlier, Microsoft has pushed the conventional boundaries with the Surface. As a nice advantage to Windows RT I’d like for the term “Cooperative” devise be applicable. Allow the WRT/WP much more input to a Pro setup.

A Surface should very easily be set up as a second monitor. It should allow touchscreen functionality to be added to high dollar, previous generation hardware. It should easily host a custom UI (not necessarily the full code base) of any Legacy application. It should compete quite aggressively in any Wacom tablet minded procurement. Essentially, every PC user looking to expand into the tablet arena should perceive value added with a RT system cooperating with their high horsepower, previous generation system.

There are a lot of power users out there that have a similar mindset as I had: Little interest in a reduced functionality OS. Microsoft needs to entice them with an increase functionality to their overall computing needs.


Some possible issues with the “Cooperative” setup.


Enhanced security is an RT advantage that Microsoft would not jeopardize; it is too compelling a feature for corporate IT. That locked down system, though, would probably create issue with binary interaction between app and Application. Typically this would be done via COM, a feature that may not have full RT implementation (given that MS Office RT does not support VBA).
What may be possible, without security risk, is a one way (RT to Pro) channel at a binary level, and a return channel that is strictly text based. The app would parse the returned text string to monitor events from the Application.

I suppose there would be no reason that an “Atom” devise could not serve this purpose as well, but that would introduce another non-locked system into the corporate IT’s sphere.


Even this “advantage” would likely become moot as the Cloud infrastructure become the norm. At least it could give RT a bit of leg up in this formative stage.

 

[SEANT]

Let me distill my motivation for this thread even further. I’m outlining a couple of app projects (fairly basic apps to be sure), one with an enterprise connection, another geared towards the individual consumer. They both seemed to be appropriate for Windows RT tablets, though would be much more easily implemented as Pro apps (x86, x64) – at least with my experience base.

I’d be willing to invest the time and energy to familiarize myself with WinRT if I thought the RT tablets would thrive. It’s just so difficult to tell with all of the factors at play. New CEO, Intel’s acceleration into the Mobile market, Microsoft’s reluctance to disclose sales numbers, etc. It’s quite maddening.

I’ll probably look towards Xamarin (multi-platform support), but I expect that to require even more of an investment.

I have to assume the large app houses, not to mention the behemoth legacy application companies, are equally unsure. It would be nice if Microsoft could get interested parties fully committed.

 

[jnjroach]

The ultimate end game for MS is the Desktop is dead, there hasn't been a major innovative application written for it in over a decade, outside Chrome and iTunes (both of which are corporate Trojans).

With Phone 8 and RT merging it gives much more critical mass and uniformly for developers. Also with Atom, Intel still struggles with the most basic tenants of mobile computing, Power Management and Video. At some point with the S0iX Atom based machines MS will need to kill legacy support as it is damaging the experience and stability of the platform or if they don't it leaves Windows on ARM as the most stable mobile Windows Solution.

I chose the Lumia 1520 over the new crop of 8" Atoms because of the stability issues they are experiencing.

 

[SEANT]

The ultimate end game for MS is the Desktop is dead, . . . .

A Long term view may see the desktop as dead but I would not recommend Microsoft write the epitaph; I think they are dealing with a particularly lively corpse.

I do agree, Cloud/Thin Client will go from viable option to dominant format at a nice steady pace. But I also think that many cloud based ecosystems will come and go before x86/x64 fails to command 50% of IT dollars. The biggest challenge Microsoft has to face is managing that transition without burning too many bridges. We may be old but there are a lot of us “Desktop” customers.

It is a classic case of an institution hamstrung by its former success. I think Microsoft is doing a good job, for the most part, they just may have to be more patient or, perhaps, make the investments that entice legacy customers along towards a speedier transition.

 

[jnjroach]

There are many desktop users, but they are not buying new machines, they are buying Android or iPad (sometime yearly) and keeping their older Windows 7 (or older) Desktops and/or Laptop because there isn't anything in the desktop space that doesn't run on them.

The only compelling advancement in the desktop space is DirectX 11 but so few games have been released for it and hardcore gaming is waning on the PC outside of the Steam Community as most of the new PC Games are Ports from console system instead of vice versa circa 2005.

Microsoft with RT has skin in the game for the Android or iPad shopper and has started to make market gains.

 

[SEANT]

I agree with everything you said in the post above (As a matter of fact, both my tower and laptop computers are 6+ years old).

The scenario you describe, though, is a snapshot of 2012 - early 2013. iOS/Android tablets were the only available option. And the advancement in the Desktop space you alluded to may have just happened, a viable tablet platform from Intel. Perhaps the Baytrail units have had some teething problems, but I can’t bet against Intel in the long term.

It is tough for me to comment on Gaming as I don’t participate. I certainly acknowledge the importance. But, again, with a viable mobile platform, the desktop space may regain some gaming attention. I'm certain the legacy software industry is busy mapping out alternate UIs for their mature, though still extremely capable, enterprise offerings.

Let me be clear, my recent posts may obscure the fact but I’m actually a big fan of RT. I’m trying to be objective, though, and in doing so it seems RT still needs a killer distinction to rise up above the other big three, iOS, Android, and 8.1 Pro.

 

[jnjroach]

RT's long term viability is in the merger with Phone 8, one legacy free mobile OS that spans 3.5" Phones to 10.6" Tablets. All of my customers (I work with the largest software and system integrators globally) are starting to create all of their LOB software in the Modern UI Space (be it iOS, Android or WinRT). The desktop is dying it will be a slow and painful death but it will die.

Intel has tried for years to perfect their Mobile Platform and consistently struggles with the same issues, they are getting better but so is ARM. I want to be clear, I'm not anti-Intel, as I have done a lot work for Intel in the past but as long as x86 is backwards compatible it subject to the type of Malware/Ransomware that is spreading currently and this is where Windows on ARM fares much better.

 

[SEANT]

Well, I have to say, I love the RT optimism. And I have no doubt about that being Microsoft's strategy.

The situation is so volatile and complex. What if RT struggles to gain market share? What if the WinPro tablets starts selling big numbers? If nothing else, I hope Microsoft is considering the possibility.

I've been fortunate enough to avoid major Malware issues, so I'm not exactly sure of the situations most susceptible: Can Microsoft simply jettison the more problematic areas of backward compatibility?

 

[jnjroach]

At some point it won't matter if it is Intel or ARM on the Tablet, lets face it the desktop on an 8" 1280x800 screen is next to useless, once they kill off the desktop and remove Win32 APIs, a Windows Tablet is a Windows Tablet doesn't matter if it is Intel or Atom.

CryptoLocker is the biggest threat in Malware/Ransomware currently, its spreading throughout the x86 landscape affecting Business, Governments and Consumers.

Modern UI Apps by their very nature are more secure then any Win32 Program.

 

[kristalsoldier]

At some point it won't matter if it is Intel or ARM on the Tablet, lets face it the desktop on an 8" 1280x800 screen is next to useless, once they kill off the desktop and remove Win32 APIs, a Windows Tablet is a Windows Tablet doesn't matter if it is Intel or Atom.

CryptoLocker is the biggest threat in Malware/Ransomware currently, its spreading throughout the x86 landscape affecting Business, Governments and Consumers.

Modern UI Apps by their very nature are more secure then any Win32 Program.

Precisely, which is why I find the Dell Venue 8 running Win 8.1 a problematic device as much as I would like a 8-9" Windows tablet that could replace my iPad. If it ran RT, it would make sense and in those devices, MS could viably kill the desktop and Office (pending Office Gemini) and market it as a low-cost pure consumption device (of course it would help if apps like VLC would be available, but I expect it within the next 3-6 months).