Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 12th Jan 2013 22:53 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 548721
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Why the artificial limit? Cause they try to push .NET in? As of today win32 apps are portable and there exist many native applications running on win32 and OSX/Linux. Microsoft's .NET is a patent mine-field unlike win32 and the posix-compatibility offered there. Microsoft actively controls and protected the .NET story. If they are able to move there ecosystem over they have strong ways to fight off competition. The whole .NET stack is a vendor lockin. That's why they tried hard to push it into the internet with Silverlight and later, once that failed, onto there ISV's. Good this failed too.
Edited 2013-01-15 07:58 UTC




Member since:
2006-07-26
Microsoft missed an opportunity here.
You have to wonder what kind of deals Intel had with Microsoft.
Obviously desktop applications are possible on ARM... it has been proven.
So why the artificial limit?
Microsoft thinks customers are too stupid to know the difference between RT and 8... thinking customers might complain that they can't run quicken or photoshop?
So what do you do?... You try to differentiate artificially.
You call it RT instead of 8, and you say up front, no desktop apps on RT. That should be a big enough difference for users and they'll be able to understand it right?
Wrong.. now it looks like OEMs think customers are too stupid to even attempt to explain the difference after Microsoft went out of their way to exaggerate the difference.
HA HA HA
If Microsoft had faith in their developers they'd create tools to make fat binaries just like OSX did with PPC and x86.
Microsoft has no such faith in their developers and it is Microsoft's fault.
They bent over backwards ensuring backward compatibility release after release and it is finally coming around to bite them in the ass.