Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 21st Oct 2012 16:13 UTC, submitted by MOS6510
Windows "I've been writing about Windows for almost 20 years, and I feel like I've kind of seen it all. But for the past several days, I've been struggling under the weight of the most brutal email onslaught I've ever endured over these two decades. And if my email is any indication, and I believe it is, the majority of people out there have absolutely no idea what Windows RT is. This is a problem." When even Paul Thurrot is worried, you can be sure it is, actually, a problem. We're going to see and hear about a lot of frustrated customer who can't load up their 1997 copy of Awesome Garden Designer 2.0 Deluxe.
Thread beginning with comment 539389
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Windoes RT != Windows
by wigry on Sun 21st Oct 2012 18:37 UTC
wigry
Member since:
2008-10-09

This is the first time in history where Windows name does not imply the expected behavior. So far consumers could ignore the suffix appended to Windows name. Would it be 95, 2000, XP, Vista or 7 - they were all Windows in the sense users expected. RT however is not Windows anymore from the consumers perspective and this will indeed be a huge mess.

Reply Score: 6

RE: Windoes RT != Windows
by steampoweredlawn on Sun 21st Oct 2012 19:54 in reply to "Windoes RT != Windows"
steampoweredlawn Member since:
2006-09-27

This is the first time in history where Windows name does not imply the expected behavior. So far consumers could ignore the suffix appended to Windows name. Would it be 95, 2000, XP, Vista or 7 - they were all Windows in the sense users expected. RT however is not Windows anymore from the consumers perspective and this will indeed be a huge mess.



That's not entirely true. I know a lot of people that bought Windows 2000 as the logical upgrade to Windows 98 and found that half their apps would not run. They didn't realize that Me was the proper upgrade path for 9x users.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Windoes RT != Windows
by tanzam75 on Sun 21st Oct 2012 21:48 in reply to "RE: Windoes RT != Windows"
tanzam75 Member since:
2011-05-19


That's not entirely true. I know a lot of people that bought Windows 2000 as the logical upgrade to Windows 98 and found that half their apps would not run. They didn't realize that Me was the proper upgrade path for 9x users.


Well, that wasn't their fault, was it? It's Microsoft's fault, for naming it Windows 2000 instead of Windows NT 5.0.

In the present situation, it's not difficult to call it the "Surface OS." Didn't people use to make fun of Microsoft's long product names? Here's one place where it could actually help. The x86 version would be "Windows 8, with support for Surface applications."

--

Windows 2000 was originally supposed to be the OS that unified the legacy and NT lines. In other words, it was supposed to be XP. The unification took longer than planned, so Microsoft released it, but kept the name.

By doing this, they ended up without a name for the successor to Windows 98, and had to call it Millennium. And then because of the spiffy name for ME, they had to name the unification OS XP. Then Vista, and we finally end up right back where we were before Windows 95, with Windows 7. Just when some sanity seems to have returned, Windows RT. Just wait until Windows 9 -- will it be RT 2.0 or RT 9.0?

Edited 2012-10-21 21:51 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE: Windoes RT != Windows
by phoenix on Mon 22nd Oct 2012 03:05 in reply to "Windoes RT != Windows"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

No, it's not.

Windows 3.1 and Windows NT 3.1 were out at the same time, and ran on different CPU architectures and apps for one were not guaranteed to work on the other. And not all apps were available for all CPU archs.

Windows 95 and Windows 2000 were out at the same time, and ran on different CPU architectures. And apps for one were not guaranteed to work on the other.

Windows CE was also available around the same time as NT and 9x, and was a completely separate OS, with a separate kernel, userland, runtimes, etc. And ran on different CPU archs. And the apps were not portable between the OSes.

There's really no difference between those situations in the past, and the situation with now with Windows RT and Windows 8.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Windoes RT != Windows
by bassbeast on Tue 23rd Oct 2012 15:23 in reply to "RE: Windoes RT != Windows"
bassbeast Member since:
2007-11-11

Wow you could NOT be more wrong! While its true that 3.1 and NT 3.1 were out at the same time one was NOT sold to the consumer, only through the business division, and it was made clear that NT wasn't made for anything but business so there wasn't any confusion there. And Win95 came out in...1995, while Win2K came out...wait for it...in Feb 2000! And again you didn't see Win2K in the retail channel, it was kept strictly for business users although a lot of us managed to buy it to escape the horror that was WinME.

The only one you got right was WinCE, which MSFT went out of their way to make look like a teeny tiny XP but as a retailer since the days of Win3.x I can tell you those others? never was an impact on the consumer because it simply wasn't sold or marketed to them. until XP MSFT was smart enough to keep their business and consumer lines separate, with the consumers getting the flashy stuff while the business users were getting stability, support for AD and group policies, etc.

So it really was a different time then friend, and MSFT did do boneheaded stupidity like they did with Win 8...well again except for WinCE, but MSFT has never had a mobile strategy to speak of in its entire history.

Reply Parent Score: 1