Jump to content



Photo

Windows RT facing pressure from being isolated

win8 winrt failure

  • Please log in to reply
58 replies to this topic

#46 +LogicalApex

LogicalApex

    Software Engineer

  • 6,516 posts
  • Joined: 14-August 02
  • Location: Philadelphia, PA
  • OS: Windows 7 Ultimate x64
  • Phone: Nexus 5

Posted 23 June 2013 - 22:23

Yes you can. The iPad used to take a long time to do a factory restore (I'm going on the assumption that he's correct it's changed recently, but I'm skeptical). That has nothing to do with "PC baggage" of any kind. They're just different approaches. The iPad requires you to be plugged into a PC to restore it, so it would use the latest image iTunes had downloaded. The Surface includes the full restore image on a recovery partition. The advantage is you can always restore it without a disk or tethering to a machine (or an internet connection and the patience to download the whole thing). A disadvantage of the implementation is that the image doesn't include monthly updates. This isn't legacy, this is an entire feature that was built just for Windows 8/RT devices. It was just built with different priorities and requirements in mind than the iPad's solution of tethering to iTunes.

 

 

I still think he's not talking about doing a restore operation on the iPad and is just talking about the "reset to factory settings" option, which is nothing like doing a full reimage of the device.

 

But it does carry that baggage.

 

For instance, the mount system of Linux made the update process for Android a lot smoother to do for Google. They have a clean separation between all user data and the OS data. Windows doesn't have a similar mount system so it is next to impossible to separate the OS from the user application and modifications in a live system. If this baggage didn't exist Microsoft could similarly update the "OS" partition as soon as an update is installed while ensuring that the user could clean the system of all of their changes without having to also wipe that OS partition.

 

This is the core of his complaint and to claim that the architectural decisions of Windows that Windows RT inherited don't contribute to the problem is an error I wouldn't expect you to make.

 

As he mentioned, there are pros and cons to this like all things that exist in our universe.

 

 

Isn't that exactly the point right there?  That there isn't an equivalent action for what he is asking? On competing devices, you get a reset to factory settings which RT doesn't have.  It only give the option of a refresh, which isn't profile destructive, or the full PC-reinstall, which is more than just dropping the latest image 'on' the device.

 

Do you disagree that even the conception of 'monthly patches' is anathema to the competition's firmware type updates, which is really his point?

 

Sure, its a different approach, just like squashing 'down' Windows for slates instead of 'growing up' WP is a different approach (and hence the need to tether or not).  That still isn't a denial of what is factually true - RT is clearly more PC like (pro and con) than the competition or WP in the 'post-PC' world.

 

So my question to you is, if unification is the M.O. MS has adopted, why do they treat phones differently?  Why wasn't RT developed with them in mind and not just slates/desktops?

 

This has confused me to no end regarding what Microsoft did with Windows 8. Their decision to pull Windows desktop down to the tablet and not to follow Apple's lead and pull the phone OS up to the tablet will forever confuse me. I think this was the major reason Windows RT has had as much trouble in the market as it has had. The tablet and the phone has far more in common than the desktop does at present. It would have been far better for them to pull the phone OS up and to build great connections between the shared phone + tablet OS with the desktop.

 

Sadly, it seems MS bet wrongly that by throwing the full Windows user base at developers they would gain some serious traction. We now know that hasn't happened. There are apps continuing to be released for Windows RT/Metro/Whatever the name is, but  we don't see it as the #1 or even #2 platform for new mobile app development.




#47 +Brandon Live

Brandon Live

    Seattle geek

  • 9,788 posts
  • Joined: 08-June 03
  • Location: Seattle, WA

Posted 24 June 2013 - 03:57

Isn't that exactly the point right there?  That there isn't an equivalent action for what he is asking? On competing devices, you get a reset to factory settings which RT doesn't have.  It only give the option of a refresh, which isn't profile destructive, or the full PC-reinstall, which is more than just dropping the latest image 'on' the device.

 

Do you disagree that even the conception of 'monthly patches' is anathema to the competition's firmware type updates, which is really his point?

 

Sure, its a different approach, just like squashing 'down' Windows for slates instead of 'growing up' WP is a different approach (and hence the need to tether or not).  That still isn't a denial of what is factually true - RT is clearly more PC like (pro and con) than the competition or WP in the 'post-PC' world.

 

So my question to you is, if unification is the M.O. MS has adopted, why do they treat phones differently?  Why wasn't RT developed with them in mind and not just slates/desktops?

 

There may not be an identical option, but then Windows has a lot of options for which the iPad doesn't have an identical equivalent. Those differences aren't due to "legacy" on either platform (hell, iOS has older parts in it than Windows RT does!). They're just the result of different design and engineering teams building them.

 

I can't fathom at all how you can say that monthly updates is "anathema" to anything Apple does. Apple does monthly updates to iOS.

 

The update approach used by Windows is exactly what Microsoft would build if it built a brand new OS from scratch just for a tablet, or scaled up Windows Phone for a tablet. In fact, the latter is already what's there. Windows Phone uses Windows Update. Anyone on the servicing team will tell you that Microsoft's approach is vastly superior and more mature than what Apple has. But one reason for that is that Windows has far more complex requirements placed upon it, partly as a result of the wider customer base. There's a lot about the way Windows Update works that is designed to support things Apple doesn't have to worry about:

1) Different PC manufacturers (each shipping different driver and firmware updates through WU).

2) Different component manufacturers shipping drivers across vendors.

3) Enterprise manageability.

4) Other parties like wireless carriers being in the mix.

5) Handling updates for a wide variety of optional components and non-OS software (i.e. Office and other MS products).

 

It is very, very easy to argue that the complex requirements met by that system and its maturity (and its scale, way beyond anything Apple has conceived of) is a virtue. Especially when the end result is functionally equivalent or superior for the vast majority of tablet customers.

 

There is no "post-PC" world. There's just a "post 'PCs as they were ten years ago'" world.

 

Phones are a different screen size. That dictates a different UI both for the OS and the apps, among other important differences. That's why iOS has different versions with different ship schedules between iPhone and iPad, for example. Similar thing with Windows. iOS has better API unification there, but Windows and Windows Phone are doing better at that with each release. And Windows has perfect API unification across tablets and other PC form factors. Apple has next to none, though they're taking baby steps toward that each year.

 

And keep in mind, just because both parties lack complete unification across all three (sometimes arbitrary) delineations, doesn't mean they aren't all going to end up there. They're just approaching it from different directions and sometimes at a different pace.

 

What's ridiculous is to say that Windows RT suffers because of "legacy" it carries and that iOS on the iPad doesn't. The iPad clearly suffers from legacy baggage from its iPhone roots, and both carry a lot of legacy from Mac OS/Darwin/Mach/etc. Hell, the input system in iOS is clearly deficient when compared to what Windows RT has, which was hugely re-engineered for 8/RT. My iPad Mini stutters when panning web pages loading a lot of content, or running heavy javascript. That's not possible on Windows because of the architecture (everything about panning is handled on a separate thread, both input and UI). It's easy to argue that the iOS way of handling input (processed on the UI thread, with message pump filters to kind of sort of mitigate busy app UI code) is legacy from its roots in the pre-touch and composition based GUI era. In addition to stuttering it has annoying side effects, like blocking the app UI thread while panning, which is why if you pan past the bottom of what it's rendered you'll see blank (or checkerboard) forever until you lift your finger. That won't happen on Windows because it has independent panning. Exactly the sort of modern, non-legacy thing I expect on a touch OS in 2013 :-)



#48 Auditor

Auditor

    Neowinian

  • 1,164 posts
  • Joined: 16-May 10
  • Location: Alberta, Canada

Posted 24 June 2013 - 04:07

Im soooo tired of retarded articles like this...as soon as I see this uninformed garbage I move on

You did not move on but you read this article and cared to reply. By the way your fanboyism to support RT can not help its demise.



#49 +Brandon Live

Brandon Live

    Seattle geek

  • 9,788 posts
  • Joined: 08-June 03
  • Location: Seattle, WA

Posted 24 June 2013 - 04:10

But it does carry that baggage.

 

For instance, the mount system of Linux made the update process for Android a lot smoother to do for Google. They have a clean separation between all user data and the OS data. Windows doesn't have a similar mount system so it is next to impossible to separate the OS from the user application and modifications in a live system. If this baggage didn't exist Microsoft could similarly update the "OS" partition as soon as an update is installed while ensuring that the user could clean the system of all of their changes without having to also wipe that OS partition.

 

This is the core of his complaint and to claim that the architectural decisions of Windows that Windows RT inherited don't contribute to the problem is an error I wouldn't expect you to make.

 

As he mentioned, there are pros and cons to this like all things that exist in our universe.

 

 

 

This has confused me to no end regarding what Microsoft did with Windows 8. Their decision to pull Windows desktop down to the tablet and not to follow Apple's lead and pull the phone OS up to the tablet will forever confuse me. I think this was the major reason Windows RT has had as much trouble in the market as it has had. The tablet and the phone has far more in common than the desktop does at present. It would have been far better for them to pull the phone OS up and to build great connections between the shared phone + tablet OS with the desktop.

 

Sadly, it seems MS bet wrongly that by throwing the full Windows user base at developers they would gain some serious traction. We now know that hasn't happened. There are apps continuing to be released for Windows RT/Metro/Whatever the name is, but  we don't see it as the #1 or even #2 platform for new mobile app development.

 

I didn't follow any of this. So Linux baggage is good but Windows baggage is bad? And your example is weird. Windows supports drive mounting exactly as Linux does (okay, maybe with more options). In neither case does the "mount" architecture or its results have any effect on either system's ability to handle updates. So yeah, I have no idea what you were getting at there. Also, on Windows RT apps have absolutely no ability to put anything anywhere that Windows doesn't carefully manage. Again, nothing to do with "mount" - it's a feature of the sandboxed permission model.

 

Pulling the Phone OS up to tablets would've been suicide for Microsoft, and a hugely wasteful and wrongheaded approach. I honestly can't imagine anyone making even a slightly convincing argument for going that path, for innumerable reasons.

 

The platform isn't even a year old yet, and it's growing at a far faster pace than either iOS or Android did their first years. Way too early to be making any calls about its success or failure.

 

Tablets and laptops have way more in common than phones and tablets. The vastly different screen size being the most important differentiation. There's a reason Apple doesn't ship the same OS on iPhone and iPad (they may call it the same, but the different release schedules betray the truth). Tablet screen sizes facility things like physical keyboard use, multi-tasking, and of course result in very different requirements for UI design. All of which is also exactly the same for laptops and to a large extent for desktops (which only push those aspects further).

 

Never mind that it's bizarre to say Windows should've "grown the phone up" when the phone started out as a shrunken down Windows!



#50 Torolol

Torolol

  • 3,190 posts
  • Joined: 24-November 12

Posted 24 June 2013 - 04:32

current Tegra3 based RT are obsolete anyway, theres other Tegra4 tablets around.



#51 Dot Matrix

Dot Matrix

    Neowinian Senior

  • 11,745 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 11
  • Location: Upstate New York
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Nokia Lumia 920

Posted 24 June 2013 - 12:54

You did not move on but you read this article and cared to reply. By the way your fanboyism to support RT can not help its demise.


Demise? Wanna show me where that's happening? Microsoft plans full support for the next few years.

#52 +LogicalApex

LogicalApex

    Software Engineer

  • 6,516 posts
  • Joined: 14-August 02
  • Location: Philadelphia, PA
  • OS: Windows 7 Ultimate x64
  • Phone: Nexus 5

Posted 24 June 2013 - 12:57

I didn't follow any of this. So Linux baggage is good but Windows baggage is bad? And your example is weird. Windows supports drive mounting exactly as Linux does (okay, maybe with more options). In neither case does the "mount" architecture or its results have any effect on either system's ability to handle updates. So yeah, I have no idea what you were getting at there. Also, on Windows RT apps have absolutely no ability to put anything anywhere that Windows doesn't carefully manage. Again, nothing to do with "mount" - it's a feature of the sandboxed permission model.

 

Pulling the Phone OS up to tablets would've been suicide for Microsoft, and a hugely wasteful and wrongheaded approach. I honestly can't imagine anyone making even a slightly convincing argument for going that path, for innumerable reasons.

 

The platform isn't even a year old yet, and it's growing at a far faster pace than either iOS or Android did their first years. Way too early to be making any calls about its success or failure.

 

Tablets and laptops have way more in common than phones and tablets. The vastly different screen size being the most important differentiation. There's a reason Apple doesn't ship the same OS on iPhone and iPad (they may call it the same, but the different release schedules betray the truth). Tablet screen sizes facility things like physical keyboard use, multi-tasking, and of course result in very different requirements for UI design. All of which is also exactly the same for laptops and to a large extent for desktops (which only push those aspects further).

 

Never mind that it's bizarre to say Windows should've "grown the phone up" when the phone started out as a shrunken down Windows!

 

 

What? To say that the mount architecture of Linux plays no role here is a misstep I wouldn't expect you to make. Of course Windows supports a mounting system similar to Linux, but it has never been heavily used by Microsoft. Who made the right decision? Overall I am not sure, but in this small case here the Linux mount system is superior.

 

Why would my example be weird and not make any sense? It is the same reason Linux users advocate separating their user data onto a different partition than the one shared by the OS files (it allows independent recovery of the OS or a complete distro change without destructively impacting user data).

 

 

A home partition (at least 100 MB)
To store user data separately from system data, create a dedicated partition within a volume group for the /home directory. This will enable you to upgrade or reinstall Red Hat Enterprise Linux without erasing user data files.

Source: Red Hat

 

Additionally, no "pulling the phone up" wouldn't have been suicide for Microsoft. No one is really caring what technical road MS pursues for this. What users are requesting is that MS had made all Windows Phone apps compatible with Windows RT tablets and the Windows RT store and the Windows Phone store should have been unified like Apple has done with iOS devices. Allowing app developers to have a natural path between the two and allowing users to jump for joy as they could take the device out of the box and already have a lot of buy in (if they were an existing Windows Phone user).

 

To call that a suicidal decision is baffling to me.



#53 Dot Matrix

Dot Matrix

    Neowinian Senior

  • 11,745 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 11
  • Location: Upstate New York
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Nokia Lumia 920

Posted 24 June 2013 - 13:06

LogicalApex, Windows Phone apps ARE compatible with WinRT. A few minor changes in code, an your app is good to go.

#54 farmeunit

farmeunit

    The other white meat.

  • 2,996 posts
  • Joined: 05-May 03
  • Location: Branson, MO USA

Posted 24 June 2013 - 13:10

That and you can use RT with managed update services so downloading takes seconds

 

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Policies\Microsoft\Windows\WindowsUpdate]
"WUServer"="https://wsus.me.com:8531/"
"WUStatusServer"="https://wsus.me.com:8531/"

Since when can they do this?  I've read articles from Microsoft that says they cannot use WSUS. 

 

It takes for ever for me, also, when doing a FULL refresh and not the normal one.  I haven't actually timed it and the update process. 



#55 TPreston

TPreston

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,717 posts
  • Joined: 18-July 12
  • Location: Ireland
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Enterprise & Server 2012R2/08R2 Datacenter
  • Phone: Nokia Lumia 1520

Posted 24 June 2013 - 13:26

Since when can they do this?  I've read articles from Microsoft that says they cannot use WSUS. 

 

It takes for ever for me, also, when doing a FULL refresh and not the normal one.  I haven't actually timed it and the update process. 

I don't understand it either it seems to be due to miscommunication between the teams ? But windowsupdate.log doesn't lie and the network firewall shows it downloading the updates from the WSUS server



#56 vetSpyder

Spyder

    Neowinian Senior

  • 14,848 posts
  • Joined: 27-August 01
  • Location: ON, Canada

Posted 24 June 2013 - 13:32

C'mon Surface RT firesales! :)



#57 +LogicalApex

LogicalApex

    Software Engineer

  • 6,516 posts
  • Joined: 14-August 02
  • Location: Philadelphia, PA
  • OS: Windows 7 Ultimate x64
  • Phone: Nexus 5

Posted 24 June 2013 - 13:36

LogicalApex, Windows Phone apps ARE compatible with WinRT. A few minor changes in code, an your app is good to go.

Yes I am aware of this and this further illustrates my point. They should require no code changes and the stores should be unified. Just like iOS and Android...



#58 Dot Matrix

Dot Matrix

    Neowinian Senior

  • 11,745 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 11
  • Location: Upstate New York
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Nokia Lumia 920

Posted 24 June 2013 - 13:39

Yes I am aware of this and this further illustrates my point. They should require no code changes and the stores should be unified. Just like iOS and Android...


Give it a bit, and I guarantee it will be.

#59 +LogicalApex

LogicalApex

    Software Engineer

  • 6,516 posts
  • Joined: 14-August 02
  • Location: Philadelphia, PA
  • OS: Windows 7 Ultimate x64
  • Phone: Nexus 5

Posted 24 June 2013 - 13:43

Give it a bit, and I guarantee it will be.

I'm sure it will. That is what is supposed to be occurring with Windows Phone Blue or some update soon.

 

I'm convinced that Microsoft had a hard start with Windows RT because of where they positioned it at launch. We shall see if this connection will come too late as most people (and manufacturers) will already have a negative connotation of Windows RT tablets.