Jump to content



Photo

What Microsoft needs to do with Windows RT

windows rt

  • Please log in to reply
44 replies to this topic

#16 neo158

neo158

    Neowinian Senior

  • 3,713 posts
  • Joined: 18-July 02
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Professional x64; Windows RT 8.1
  • Phone: Samsung ATIV S i8750

Posted 02 November 2013 - 04:09

Streaming apps is very effective actually, provided you have relatively decent internet (doesn't need to be that good)

 

Think doing AutoCAD in remote desktop.  It's not an uncommon use case scenario with Citrix or other virtualization technologies.  I would love it if MS jumped on this bandwagon. 

 

That's exactly what I do with Surface, use Remote Desktop to access applications on my PC.




#17 thomastmc

thomastmc

    Unofficial Attorney of Neowin

  • 1,329 posts
  • Joined: 18-July 12
  • Location: Kansas City
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Pro
  • Phone: Lumia 928

Posted 02 November 2013 - 04:10

I agree but it's not just building the ecosystem, if they used a baytrail chip then what would be the point of the Surface Pro/Pro 2?

 
Exactly... There isn't a point, over the long run, for RT. Don't get me wrong, the Modern UI and it's ecosystem are essential, but not a separate RT.
 

The futility of Surface and Windows RT: If only Microsoft had stuck with Intel

If it wasn’t enough to have a tablet-######-laptop that can run the entire library of x86 games and programs, get this: The T100 gets the same or better battery life than the Surface 2, performance is about equal (better CPU performance; worse GPU), and you get the same amount of storage and micro SD card expansion. The kicker, though, is that the 32GB Asus T100 with keyboard dock is just $350 — the comparable Surface 2 with Type Cover is $580. Oh, I forgot to mention, the T100 comes with Office 2013 Home, too, and unlimited Asus cloud storage.

Of course, this raises a rather important question: Why would you ever buy the Surface 2, or indeed any other ARM-powered Windows RT tablet? If Intel has finally closed the performance and battery life gap between x86 and ARM, why would you ever intentionally opt for a crippled ARM-powered tablet?

http://www.extremete...tuck-with-intel

 


 



#18 neo158

neo158

    Neowinian Senior

  • 3,713 posts
  • Joined: 18-July 02
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Professional x64; Windows RT 8.1
  • Phone: Samsung ATIV S i8750

Posted 02 November 2013 - 04:28

 
Exactly... There isn't a point, over the long run, for RT. Don't get me wrong, the Modern UI and it's ecosystem are essential, but not a separate RT.

 

 

You're missing the point, Surface and Surface Pro are for two different purposes. Surface is a media consumption device which needs better battery life than an x86 based tablet will provide and ARM is perfect for that. Surface Pro is designed as a laptop replacement, that's why it's x86 based so it can run all the software that a regular laptop would run. Why do you think that ARM processors are used in smartphones and why do you think there is only one Intel based smartphone on the market?

 

The iPad must be intentionally crippled according to that article then seeing as it has an ARM processor in it, ah I forget, Microsoft should be treated differently because it's Microsoft. Do you think that the iPad should have a Core i5 processor in it, run MacOS and ALL the software that runs on it?

 

Intel will never be able to rival ARM processors for battery life and they know it. Why do you think Intel are going to be manufacturing ARM processors for other companies if their baytrail processors are supposedly superior to ARM based ones?



#19 OP Atomic Wanderer Chicken

Atomic Wanderer Chicken

    Assistant Special Agent Chicken in charge

  • 3,699 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 12
  • Location: Black Mesa Research Facility, USA
  • OS: Windows 95 with Microsoft Plus
  • Phone: Motorola MicroTAC Elite

Posted 02 November 2013 - 04:32

Windows RT works great, its snappier, its great on battery life and acts like the regular x86/64 windows with the exception of the desktop apps. Windows RT is new and needs time like anything else that is new.



#20 dvb2000

dvb2000

    Neowinian

  • 1,451 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 07

Posted 02 November 2013 - 04:35

Agreed 100%.  An azure-based "cloud apps" store would be amazing.  Azure has the backbone to do it, and MS could charge an annual subscription

 

stopped reading right there, I'm not paying EXTRA to run my apps on the cloud - what a ridiculous idea.



#21 dvb2000

dvb2000

    Neowinian

  • 1,451 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 07

Posted 02 November 2013 - 04:37

I actually think the opposite, unless RT is kept around for some kind of budget market.

 

Who aren't going to pay an extra annual subscription to run their x86 apps.

 

They may as well just buy the pro in the first place (if they even wanted a Metro tablet in the first place), rather than a cheap and nasty RT version that has limited function.



#22 neo158

neo158

    Neowinian Senior

  • 3,713 posts
  • Joined: 18-July 02
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Professional x64; Windows RT 8.1
  • Phone: Samsung ATIV S i8750

Posted 02 November 2013 - 04:41

Who aren't going to pay an extra annual subscription to run their x86 apps.

 

They may as well just buy the pro in the first place (if they even wanted a Metro tablet in the first place), rather than a cheap and nasty RT version that has limited function.

 

I suppose you've used a Windows RT based tablet extensively then?

 

Surface is far more versatile than it's rival ARM based tablets!!



#23 Steve Mulcahy

Steve Mulcahy

    Neowinian

  • 26 posts
  • Joined: 01-May 13

Posted 02 November 2013 - 04:42

The arm version has a few advantages over the Pro until they can take out the cooling fan and get the tablet to lose the vent and thickness.

 

I'd rather see them find a way to get Thunderbolt onto the arm version and then have a crazy dock that you connect into with a great graphics card, more storage and a big monitor attached to it than have the bulkier Pro.

 

I also prefer the build quality and materials used in the Surface to some of MS' competitors. The Surface feels like a worthy competitor to the iPad.

 

The recent Ars Technica reviews of the Surface 2 and 2 Pro perfectly sum up why I'm sticking with the RT for a bit longer at least.



#24 thomastmc

thomastmc

    Unofficial Attorney of Neowin

  • 1,329 posts
  • Joined: 18-July 12
  • Location: Kansas City
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Pro
  • Phone: Lumia 928

Posted 02 November 2013 - 04:43

You're missing the point, Surface and Surface Pro are for two different purposes. Surface is a media consumption device which needs better battery life than an x86 based tablet will provide and ARM is perfect for that. Surface Pro is designed as a laptop replacement, that's why it's x86 based so it can run all the software that a regular laptop would run. Why do you think that ARM processors are used in smartphones and why do you think there is only one Intel based smartphone on the market?
 
Do you think that the iPad should have a Core i5 processor in it, run MacOS and ALL the software that runs on it?


I think you missed the quote. You should read the article. Times are a changin' my friend :)
 

The T100 gets the same or better battery life than the Surface 2, performance is about equal (better CPU performance; worse GPU), and you get the same amount of storage and micro SD card expansion. The kicker, though, is that the 32GB Asus T100 with keyboard dock is just $350 — the comparable Surface 2 with Type Cover is $580. Oh, I forgot to mention, the T100 comes with Office 2013 Home, too, and unlimited Asus cloud storage.

More from the article...

Yes, every program and game that you use on your Windows desktop PC also works on the T100. Steam works on the T100. Team Fortress 2 works on the T100. Photoshop works (surprisingly well!) on the T100. Let that sink in for a moment, and then read on.

Why would you ever buy the Surface 2, or indeed any other ARM-powered Windows RT tablet? If Intel has finally closed the performance and battery life gap between x86 and ARM, why would you ever intentionally opt for a crippled ARM-powered tablet?

http://www.extremete...tuck-with-intel

 
ARM is used because it historically has been cheaper and had better power efficiency than Intel x86, sure.
 
That is no longer the case...
 
Apple can only wish...



#25 neo158

neo158

    Neowinian Senior

  • 3,713 posts
  • Joined: 18-July 02
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Professional x64; Windows RT 8.1
  • Phone: Samsung ATIV S i8750

Posted 02 November 2013 - 04:51

I think you missed the quote. You should read the article. Times are a changin' my friend :)
 

 
ARM is used because it historically has been cheaper and had better power efficiency than Intel x86, sure.
 
That is no longer the case...

 

Apple can only wish...
 

 

I think you need to reread my post again because you completely ignored it, didn't even bother to give any meaningful answer and continue to post that same biased article, Intel and battery life cannot and should not be used in the same sentence.

 

Then tell me, why is it that no smartphone manufacturer bothers to use Intel processors in their devices if Intel supposedly have chips that give superior battery life than ARM?



#26 Crimson Rain

Crimson Rain

    Neowinian

  • 1,204 posts
  • Joined: 29-September 12
  • OS: Windows 8.1 x64
  • Phone: Lumia 1020 Yellow

Posted 02 November 2013 - 04:59

MS should stop producing this grabage and separate the tablet and desktop altogether.

If you think tablet and desktop will remain different entity, you just simply lack any insight.

In three or four years, we will have our phones powering our "desktop" let alone tablet...

#27 thomastmc

thomastmc

    Unofficial Attorney of Neowin

  • 1,329 posts
  • Joined: 18-July 12
  • Location: Kansas City
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Pro
  • Phone: Lumia 928

Posted 02 November 2013 - 05:06

I think you need to reread my post again because you completely ignored it, didn't even bother to give any meaningful answer and continue to post that same biased article, Intel and battery life cannot and should not be used in the same sentence.

 

Then tell me, why is it that no smartphone manufacturer bothers to use Intel processors in their devices if Intel supposedly have chips that give superior battery life than ARM?

 

I did go back and re-read your post incase I missed something. I didn't ignore your post. I'm sorry if you thought I did.

 

The article basically explains every point you made, other than whether Apple should make an i5 or Bay Trail iPad. I didn't realize you considered the article to be biased. Can you please explain why you think the article is biased?

 

I already answered your last question. Historically ARM has performed better with more efficient power consumption, and has been cheaper. That is no longer the case. Even if you believe that the article is biased, you can't believe that Intel can't make even more improvements to Bay Trail in order to catch up to ARM.

 

 If Intel can close the gap in performance, battery life, and cost of ARM, (and probably already has), then why would you still need an RT only ARM version for media purposes instead of a x86?


Edited by thomastmc, 02 November 2013 - 05:10.


#28 Steve Mulcahy

Steve Mulcahy

    Neowinian

  • 26 posts
  • Joined: 01-May 13

Posted 02 November 2013 - 05:10

I think you're right there. But I think that Tim Cook is being really disingenuous saying that Microsoft is confused. I think both Apple and MS are heading to the same unified device and I think by iOS 10 at the latest, Mac OSX will be no more. Microsoft took the harder route. I like to consider that Apple has put us in tepid water and is slowly turning up the heat in terms of their approach towards removing the desktop. Microsoft had to take the gamble and feel the pain for a few years.

 

As a real Apple fan from 2003-2012, I consider what Microsoft has been doing just recently a lot more exciting than Apple's stuff.

I think you need to reread my post again because you completely ignored it, didn't even bother to give any meaningful answer and continue to post that same biased article, Intel and battery life cannot and should not be used in the same sentence.

 

Then tell me, why is it that no smartphone manufacturer bothers to use Intel processors in their devices if Intel supposedly have chips that give superior battery life than ARM?



#29 Steve Mulcahy

Steve Mulcahy

    Neowinian

  • 26 posts
  • Joined: 01-May 13

Posted 02 November 2013 - 05:16

I did go back and re-read your post incase I missed something. I didn't ignore your post. I'm sorry if you thought I did.

 

The article basically explains every point you made, other than whether Apple should make an i5 or Bay Trail iPad. I didn't realize you considered the article to be biased. Can you please explain why you think the article is biased?

 

I already answered your last question. Historically ARM has performed better with more efficient power consumption, and has been cheaper. That is no longer the case. Even if you believe that the article is biased, you can't believe that Intel can't make even more improvements to Bay Trail in order to catch up to ARM.

 

 If Intel can close the gap in performance, battery life, and cost of ARM, (and probably already has), then why would you still need an RT only ARM version for media purposes instead of a x86?

 

Unless the NSA completely breaks the public image of cloud computing, why would we need to have x86 chips, especially with 64 bit ARM SoCs slowly coming out? You can get over 11 hours of use out of a new iPad that can run more live channels in Garageband than my 2007 MacBook with 4GB RAM could.



#30 thomastmc

thomastmc

    Unofficial Attorney of Neowin

  • 1,329 posts
  • Joined: 18-July 12
  • Location: Kansas City
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Pro
  • Phone: Lumia 928

Posted 02 November 2013 - 05:30

Unless the NSA completely breaks the public image of cloud computing, why would we need to have x86 chips, especially with 64 bit ARM SoCs slowly coming out? You can get over 11 hours of use out of a new iPad that can run more live channels in Garageband than my 2007 MacBook with 4GB RAM could.

 

As others have said, virtualizing x86 to the cloud isn't the best option for everyone.

 

Why would anyone rather have x86 vs ARM? Compatibility. All of your existing x86 games and applications can run on any device. Plus, the power efficiency of x86 is (arguably, obviously) on par with ARM finally. Even if you don't believe that it's quite there yet, it's very close, and will be in the short term. There's no point for most software vendors or developers to painstakingly, and expensively, port all of their applications to a new architecture and/or a new interface.