Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 8th Jan 2013 23:27 UTC
Windows So, a rudimentary jailbreak for Windows RT made its way onto the web these past few days. Open source applications were ported right away, and it was confirmed that Windows RT is the full Windows - it's exactly the same as regular Windows, except that it runs on ARM. Microsoft responded to the jailbreak as well.
Thread beginning with comment 547849
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by saso
by saso on Wed 9th Jan 2013 00:18 UTC
saso
Member since:
2007-04-18

A Windows that can't run x86 code, but only Metro applications, is a safe Windows.

But if you're not going to be running existing Windows software, what exactly is the selling point of Windows then? What's the added value of Metro apps over, say, Android, which has much more software available for it and is far less developer hostile (since it gives you lots more freedom on how to develop software for it).

This has puzzled me about Microsoft's Windows RT strategy ever since they announced it. They offer an Apple-priced product with the same lack of openness and far less software. But the market doesn't need another Apple, that need has already been covered.

Reply Score: 12

RE: Comment by saso
by judgen on Wed 9th Jan 2013 01:31 in reply to "Comment by saso"
judgen Member since:
2006-07-12

I could have answered consitency, but that i clrearly not the case as skeumorphism is still allowed withing Rt applications. I have been using my w7 mobile for a while now and even though i really regretted it at fisrt i have really learned to hate it.

Nokia is known for their hardware, they f|ed it up on my model though as the shitty battery keeps falling out in my pocket. Hope they do better with their other phones, since the one i got surely does not cut it.
I have omitted the mode name *most users that have one know the problem i am talking about( as the apologists for microsoft will rip me a new one by any unfounded reason they can find. I just do not care any more.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by saso
by Drumhellar on Wed 9th Jan 2013 02:04 in reply to "RE: Comment by saso"
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

Which phone do you have? I have the Lumia 710 and it is pretty solid.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by saso
by Nelson on Wed 9th Jan 2013 05:51 in reply to "RE: Comment by saso"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

I've never heard of this issue occurring, but I would get in contact with Nokia support as I doubt this is the experience they have in mind. In the past they've been very kind in helping me resolve some one-off issues I had with a developer handset I was sent.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Comment by saso
by Drumhellar on Wed 9th Jan 2013 02:03 in reply to "Comment by saso"
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

Microsoft has a three good things going for it that Apple (and Android) doesn't: OEM relationships, Enterprise support/integration, and size.

With a wide range of OEMs able to make Windows RT systems, prices will drop far below what Apple will sell their gear for (while hopefully some will maintain high-end quality), and be in the range of Android devices.

Next, Microsoft has strong Enterprise relationships. If they buy tablets, they'll probably end up buying Microsoft tablets, for a couple of reasons. First, Microsoft has long supported the Enterprise, and has a reputation of maintaining compatibility for a long time. Second, there are these little things called Roadmaps that Microsoft makes easily available. I don't think I've ever seen an official Apple roadmap. Remember when Apple abruptly dropped the X-Serve? Windows RT has tight integration with existing management tools that come with Windows Server. Equivalent tools for iPads and Android tools just aren't as good in Windows-centric environment.

A secondary effect of enterprise adoption is that people may pick up the same devices for home. This is part of the success of the IBM PC. When people brought computers home, they would get compatible systems.

Now, one thing that will effect that previous point is the shift towards people bringing their own device. This is a relatively new thing, and as it becomes more commonplace, I expect it to actually accelerate. Once companies get used to supporting devices brought from home, they'll probably insist on it as a way to save money. This could halt enterprise adoption in the long run, more than just unfamiliarity with a new platform would in the short term.

Finally, Microsoft is a behemoth, and they surely recognize the value of the markets that they aren't really participating in. Remember how everybody said there was no room for the XBox, that having Nintendo, Sony, and Sega was crowded enough? Well, Sega is gone, and Nintendo is being increasingly relegated to the handheld market. If Microsoft plays the same strategy, they have a good chance at success.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by saso
by tylerdurden on Wed 9th Jan 2013 07:05 in reply to "RE: Comment by saso"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

Microsoft has a three good things going for it that Apple (and Android) doesn't: OEM relationships in the PC space, Enterprise support/integration in the PC space, and size in the PC space.


There, fixed.

Otherwise 2 out of 3 do not apply for the mobile/low power space: Apple is arguably larger than MS from a valuation standpoint, and Google has far more traction with Phone/Tablet OEMs.

Microsoft still has the enterprise market, which is a nice chunk... but it's hurting for growth.

Edited 2013-01-09 07:08 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[2]: Comment by saso
by saso on Wed 9th Jan 2013 14:59 in reply to "RE: Comment by saso"
saso Member since:
2007-04-18

With a wide range of OEMs able to make Windows RT systems, prices will drop far below what Apple will sell their gear for (while hopefully some will maintain high-end quality), and be in the range of Android devices.

Except that Microsoft is going full-ahead in alienating their OEMs by selling a tablet that is vastly more popular the OEM offerings. If I were in business, I'd be very suspicious if my supplier were competing with me in my sole area of business.

Next, Microsoft has strong Enterprise relationships. If they buy tablets, they'll probably end up buying Microsoft tablets, for a couple of reasons. First, Microsoft has long supported the Enterprise, and has a reputation of maintaining compatibility for a long time.

Sure, hardly anything beats being golf buddies with the CIO of a Fortune 500, but then, these aren't real points of merit, but simply back room deals.

Second, there are these little things called Roadmaps that Microsoft makes easily available.

And that's an argument for buying a Windows tablet how? Remember the Windows Phone 7.5 -> 8.0 "no upgrades for you suckers" debacle? Yeah, they'll tell you all about the features you're not going to get. ;)

Windows RT has tight integration with existing management tools that come with Windows Server.

Care to provide references? I'm not aware of any.

Equivalent tools for iPads and Android tools just aren't as good in Windows-centric environment.

Both iOS and Android have full ActiveSync support with remote policy management, remote wipe, etc. What tools does Windows RT have more?

Now, one thing that will effect that previous point is the shift towards people bringing their own device. This is a relatively new thing, and as it becomes more commonplace, I expect it to actually accelerate. Once companies get used to supporting devices brought from home, they'll probably insist on it as a way to save money. This could halt enterprise adoption in the long run, more than just unfamiliarity with a new platform would in the short term.

Yes, and you know what platforms they are authorizing for bringing into the enterprise? Android and iOS - I work on exactly such a project for a bank. They want their front-office people to use their own devices rather than the bank having to buy the devices for them, and as a consequence, *the bank* has to adapt to Android and iOS devices their employees own, and not the other way around.

Finally, Microsoft is a behemoth, and they surely recognize the value of the markets that they aren't really participating in. Remember how everybody said there was no room for the XBox, that having Nintendo, Sony, and Sega was crowded enough? Well, Sega is gone, and Nintendo is being increasingly relegated to the handheld market. If Microsoft plays the same strategy, they have a good chance at success.

Ah, well, here we can agree. Microsoft sure knows how to drown a problem in money until it goes away. Why compete on technical merit, if you can just buy your way into a market. But it isn't answering my original question: why should people give Microsoft their money? In essence, your answer here amounts to "because Microsoft will make sure you have no other choice".

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by saso
by Lennie on Wed 9th Jan 2013 22:55 in reply to "RE: Comment by saso"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

You are wrong, Windows RT does not have any of the properties you mentioned. Windows 8 on Intel-based devices has these properties.

Their enterprise support for Windows RT currently still sucks, because it does not integrate with the current solution for PCs. And is still very new (read: buggy ?) even newer than Windows 8/RT.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: Comment by saso
by WorknMan on Wed 9th Jan 2013 02:03 in reply to "Comment by saso"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

What's the added value of Metro apps over, say, Android, which has much more software available for it and is far less developer hostile (since it gives you lots more freedom on how to develop software for it).


For me, the potential for running the same apps on desktop and tablet (and hopefully phone in the future) holds a lot of appeal. Granted, I don't want to run things like Visual Studio, but I LOVE being able to get Facebook notifications via the built-in Messenger app on Windows 8. I wish I had this same functionality for all of my phone and tablet apps. For example, if I have a grocery list app on my phone, I don't have to worry about if it has an online sync component if I want to use it on my desktop - I just fire up the same app on the desktop, and save the list to Skydrive. As it is, if I want to be able to share data from apps between my Android phone/tablet and the desktop, I'm usually relegated to some shitty web app, that may require a browser extension or three just to make it usable. Granted, Metro apps are still in their infancy, but I hope it matures into a decent app ecosystem.

As for running 'classic' desktop apps on a tablet, even if I COULD do this, would I really want to? I usually don't walk around with a keyboard and mouse in my back pocket ;)

Edited 2013-01-09 02:07 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by saso
by Morgan on Wed 9th Jan 2013 05:38 in reply to "RE: Comment by saso"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

As for running 'classic' desktop apps on a tablet, even if I COULD do this, would I really want to? I usually don't walk around with a keyboard and mouse in my back pocket ;)



Why not, when this is available? http://www.amazon.com/Bluetooth-Handheld-Keyboard-Multi-Touchpad-Po...

I have one for my Raspberry Pi and it works amazingly well. So far I've only had to charge it twice in three weeks, including the initial charge, and the laser pointer is fun for messing with my fiancee's dog.

They also make a USB wireless version for use with computers without Bluetooth, though this one does come with a Bluetooth dongle as a nice bonus.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by saso
by saso on Wed 9th Jan 2013 22:43 in reply to "RE: Comment by saso"
saso Member since:
2007-04-18

For me, the potential for running the same apps on desktop and tablet (and hopefully phone in the future) holds a lot of appeal.

But you can't, can you? Save for a "handful" of brand new Metro apps, the vast bulk of Windows software doesn't run on both. Essentially, it's like saying that you're going to buy a computer now in the hopes that at some point in the future you hope somebody will develop something that will run on both your tablet and your PC.

Granted, I don't want to run things like Visual Studio, but I LOVE being able to get Facebook notifications via the built-in Messenger app on Windows 8.

This, so far, isn't an argument for Windows 8, it's just about a messaging and notification frame that doesn't suck. Android 4.2, for instance, already has that (you can respond to notifications, including responding to messages, directly from the notifications panel).

I wish I had this same functionality for all of my phone and tablet apps.

On Android 4.2 you do, for both phones and tablets.

For example, if I have a grocery list app on my phone, I don't have to worry about if it has an online sync component if I want to use it on my desktop - I just fire up the same app on the desktop, and save the list to Skydrive. As it is, if I want to be able to share data from apps between my Android phone/tablet and the desktop, I'm usually relegated to some shitty web app, that may require a browser extension or three just to make it usable. Granted, Metro apps are still in their infancy, but I hope it matures into a decent app ecosystem.

What does the UI have to do with app functionality? If you're developing an app for grocery lists that integrates across devices, you'd be crazy to tie it to some Windows-specific functionality (and automatically kill most of your market). Most all software is developed in two tiers here, a generic back-end, and a specific UI front-end. Metro only lowers the barriers for UI design, but it in no way eases the problems with data sharing.

As for running 'classic' desktop apps on a tablet, even if I COULD do this, would I really want to? I usually don't walk around with a keyboard and mouse in my back pocket ;)

Why would you be carrying those around? How about a wireless dock? I already have a 27'' Samsung "wireless dock" monitor with UWB. Get within a few feet of it with my laptop and it automatically hooks up my monitor, sound, USB ports with keyboard and mouse and network to it, no need to attach cables, or even take the machine out of the bag. Now imagine being able to do so with your tablet, or better yet, phone! Noo, clearly, why would anybody want to do that?

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE: Comment by saso
by HappyGod on Wed 9th Jan 2013 05:11 in reply to "Comment by saso"
HappyGod Member since:
2005-10-19

But if you're not going to be running existing Windows software, what exactly is the selling point of Windows then? What's the added value of Metro apps over, say, Android, which has much more software available for it and is far less developer hostile (since it gives you lots more freedom on how to develop software for it).


Well, I can think of several reasons:

1. Firstly, and most importantly; Microsoft Office. Corporate users live and breathe MS Office. And, while the full office suite isn't available yet on RT, it will be, and that's going to be a huge draw for lots of people.

And no, OOo isn't a real substitute. You know it. I know it. Everybody knows it.

2. Microsoft is the only shop in town doing the whole same-experience-on-all-platforms thing. Whether you love or hate it, it's a point of differentiation.

Personally, after almost vomiting explosively when I first started using Win8 on the desktop, I'm slowly coming around.

3. Look and feel. The metro (or whatever it's called now) desktop is great on mobile devices. They have the best integration with social media, and it's a pleasure to use.

And no, I don't work for Microsoft! :-)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by saso
by WereCatf on Wed 9th Jan 2013 05:31 in reply to "RE: Comment by saso"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

the whole same-experience-on-all-platforms thing.


Alas, is that really a good thing? As it stands, the platforms are wildly differing in specs and therefore you're limiting yourself on how you can present yourself to the end-user and how the end-user can interact with you. Personally I don't view it as a positive thing; Metro is way, way too limited on an actual PC and one has to interact with it by emulating touch-screen gestures -- I do not view a unified experience worth the losses in ease-of-use and features.

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[2]: Comment by saso
by Sodki on Wed 9th Jan 2013 09:24 in reply to "RE: Comment by saso"
Sodki Member since:
2005-11-10

"But if you're not going to be running existing Windows software, what exactly is the selling point of Windows then?


Well, I can think of several reasons:

1. Firstly, and most importantly; Microsoft Office. Corporate users live and breathe MS Office. And, while the full office suite isn't available yet on RT, it will be, and that's going to be a huge draw for lots of people.

And no, OOo isn't a real substitute. You know it. I know it. Everybody knows it.
"

I'll have to strongly disagree. Corporate users live and breathe a subset of MS Office, which for the most part is completely replaceable by OpenOffice.org or LibreOffice. I'm not saying that is always the case, of course, but I have personally seen it done many times with zero training. It worked fine and it costed nothing. It is wrong to assume people specifically need MS Office for their office computing needs.

Besides, corporate users need to use more corporate products besides MS Office and those do not work in Windows RT, so promoting it is a moot point.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[2]: Comment by saso
by saso on Wed 9th Jan 2013 14:40 in reply to "RE: Comment by saso"
saso Member since:
2007-04-18

1. Firstly, and most importantly; Microsoft Office. Corporate users live and breathe MS Office.

By which of course you mean they live and breathe the proprietary and incompatible MS Office file formats. Not that I dispute your claim, I just felt the need to clarify the situation.

And, while the full office suite isn't available yet on RT, it will be, and that's going to be a huge draw for lots of people.

Future, unannounced and speculated about products aren't valid reasons to purchase a computer now, are they?

2. Microsoft is the only shop in town doing the whole same-experience-on-all-platforms thing. Whether you love or hate it, it's a point of differentiation.

Er, not really. Android on phones and tablets is already converged and it's just a question of when it will make the hop to even larger computing platforms still (a step it has arguably already taken - plenty of tablets allow HDMI output and keyboard+mouse input and the results work quite alright).

3. Look and feel. The metro (or whatever it's called now) desktop is great on mobile devices. They have the best integration with social media, and it's a pleasure to use.

This is all great, but it's subjective and it's not something that will force users to do a platform and ecosystem change. "We believe feature X is 5% better on our devices!" isn't something that will get average Joe's attention. For that you have to have total killers, something nobody else can do at all (e.g. Android's openness, low price, different handset styles, Apple's polish, cool factor, etc.). From what I can see Microsoft is trying to literally poise themselves in between the two, but if you're just a tiny dude between two heavyweights, chances are you'll just get squashed.

And no, I don't work for Microsoft! :-)

And I totally believe you.. ;) (just kidding)

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE: Comment by saso
by Deviate_X on Wed 9th Jan 2013 19:21 in reply to "Comment by saso"
Deviate_X Member since:
2005-07-11

No one who has experience using a Surface tablet and an Android tablet would describe the Android experience (Nexus) as fluid or elegant, out of the box.

Of course it could be more so with customisations.

So i would not recommend Android to anyone who (needed) to ask about what tablet to get.

On the other hand, the problem with Surface is the high price. Microsoft seen as missing in action at the $200 level.

Edited 2013-01-09 19:31 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by saso
by saso on Wed 9th Jan 2013 22:27 in reply to "RE: Comment by saso"
saso Member since:
2007-04-18

No one who has experience using a Surface tablet and an Android tablet would describe the Android experience (Nexus) as fluid or elegant, out of the box.

I've both an iPad 3 and a Nexus 7 and I seriously don't see any difference in interface fluidity. Nevertheless, suppose what you're saying on fluidity is real (and "elegant" is a subjective measure), let's keep in mind that the Betamax was also technically superior. But ultimately it didn't count. Being a little better at some things isn't going to get you any converts. You have to be a lot better, or be able to do something the other guys just plain cannot do at all.

So i would not recommend Android to anyone who (needed) to ask about what tablet to get.

If you're basing your recommendations purely on interface reaction times and subjective impressions of design instead of than real usability, I suspect you might be viewing your computing devices more as fashion accessories, rather than tools of utility.

So in all, you have yet to present a case why people should buy into a product that is, arguably, marginally better at UI presentation while being more expensive and unambiguously less useful (less software available). Doesn't sound like a winner to me...

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by saso
by tylerdurden on Thu 10th Jan 2013 08:17 in reply to "RE: Comment by saso"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

Both experiences suck; Android in tablets/controvertibles is "meh" at best. And Microsoft's RT is the definition of schizophrenic by dropping users back and forth the metro/desktop modes.

Microsoft is in a tight spot in the tablet/mobile space: from a cost perspective RT is not as attractive to OEMs as Android is. Whereas for end users RT does not have anywhere near the already established app/media ecosystem of the iPad. MS is left with their main value proposition for their tablets being a half assed port of Office, which it's a feature only a few tablet users demand.

Edited 2013-01-10 08:31 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by saso
by ze_jerkface on Fri 11th Jan 2013 08:12 in reply to "RE: Comment by saso"
ze_jerkface Member since:
2012-06-22

On the other hand, the problem with Surface is the high price. Microsoft seen as missing in action at the $200 level.


Even at $200 I would still recommend the iPad mini for the typical user. It would still be worth the $130 premium due to the software library. I also think the Kindle/Nook tablets are a better offering as well.

Surface RT is just a bad idea. They're basically trying to sell Office Junior plus IE all while pissing off Windows developers by discarding the APIs they built up over the last 10 years.

What they need to do is bury all these bad ideas and pretend the Sinofsky era never existed.

Reply Parent Score: 2