Dell drops Windows RT, only Microsoft remains selling the OS

In the fall of 2012, five companies offered tablets or PCs that ran on Microsoft's new ARM-based Windows RT. Now just one company is actively selling such a product and it happens to be Microsoft. This week, the last remaining third party Windows RT hardware provider, Dell, stopped selling its lone product that used the OS, the XPS 10.

Dell's online store now lists the XPS 10 as being "unavailable" and offers the Windows 8-based Latitude 10 tablet as a possible alternative. Earlier this year, Neil Hand, the head of Dell's tablet and high-end PC business, stated the company still plans to introduce new Windows RT devices, but so far, it has yet to make any such product announcements.

Asus has already announced it is getting out of the Windows RT business after poor sales of its only product that used the OS. Lenovo has also stopped selling its only Windows RT device and its Australian marketing chief Nick Reynolds recently said there was no more need for Windows RT due to battery life and performance improvements in Intel's newest processors. Samsung's only Windows RT product was never even sold in the U.S when it launched and has since been discontinued.

That leaves Microsoft as the only current Windows RT hardware maker, as it continues to sell the Surface RT tablet and will launch Surface 2 on October 22nd. The rumored smaller Surface tablet is supposed to use Windows RT as well. Nokia is reportedly working on a Windows RT tablet that might be officially announced on October 22nd, but of course Microsoft will soon own Nokia's Devices and Services division.

Source: Dell via PC World | Image via Dell

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Chrome to start blocking plug-ins using Netscape's API in 2014

Next Story

Microsoft trying to keep its top execs with bonuses of up to 150 percent

116 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

That's great for Microsoft, now they can modify, change, sell and compete with RT and not have to hear the OEMs crying about competition. Being that they don't sell them. Now they can introduce new blades, make changes and all sorts and create a new niche that can take off all on it's own.

Once they do that, I can see dell and all the others trying to climb back into bed to get a piece of the new RT/Blade market.

I say Microsoft should make lemonade from this.

Windows RT isn't going away, it's going to be the OS used in the future for phones, phablets and at least mini-tablets that will run the same apps and scale to the different screen sizes. So maybe RT on 10" devices goes away, it matters little to MS as long as the Windows Store ecosystem grows and they get more and more apps.

The majority of users are fine with the core apps that come in RT, the new 8.1 metro apps are a nice update over the poor original versions in 8.0 that hurt RT since it didn't allow desktop apps. Once metro apps are at a better level then this idea or need for the desktop goes away for most consumers out there that just need basic computing and entertainment apps like Netflix and so on. It doesn't happen overnight though but 8.1 brings a lot to the table on the framework and API side which will help make store apps better, and once MS finally gets it's metro version of the core Office apps out then RT can hide/drop the desktop and keep that just for x86 "Pro" devices.

What OEM in their right mind would support RT at this stage? Not only would their hardware be competing DIRECTLY with Microsoft, putting them at an instant disadvantage on cost, but Microsoft is talking about changing everything up again to make Windows Phone and RT apps one and the same....which is another compatibility breaking upgrade that, like the transition from Windows Phone 7 to Windows Phone 8, will most likely require new hardware!

No, RT is a dead OS walking...(limping?) and the consumers AND the critics have already spoken on the matter. It's only due to Ballmer's tone deaf response to customers that the Surface 2 exists at all. He can't leave the company soon enough!

How would it require new hardware? RT and Android run on pretty much identical hardware today - the only difference is the specifications of the two OSes and firmware code that is not OS-neutral. There is little difference between RT and ModernUI apps today - and that is despite widely-divergent architectures between x86 and ARM. You can write common apps between either and Windows Phone right now - using current development tools; it's been possible since the Windows 8 Consumer Preview! (There are plenty of articles on how to do so - from Microsoft AND other companies; a large number of just the MSDN-sourced blog articles are quoted in the Neowin Windows and Microsoft Beta forums alone. ) However, there are developers looking for any reason NOT to do so - even if they have to make those reasons up.

With advancements in the development of Atom processors, I reckon Windows on ARM is not going to make much sense in the near future. At least not the way it has been initially envisaged (customer products). Maybe for Windows embedded?

Considering the direction Microsoft is going with the modern UI, there is nothing wrong with Windows RT as a consuming device. It will be years before the new UI is able to be as productive as the old one but for most consumers RT will do fine.

Considering RT runs on lighter and cheaper hardware there is real benefit to RT over 8. Microsoft should consider giving away RT for free and capture some of the low-end tablet market. I'm sure OEMs will be interested in RT when it's free just like Android. And because RT is a different product from 8 Microsoft isn't hurting itself (all that much). The benefit of becoming a important player in the tablet market far outweight the downsides.

Windows RT and Windows share the same metro app ecosystem and soon WP will join. It doesn't matter to MS if RT itself was a success or not, as far as the whole ecosystem is doing good.

acrodex said,
Windows RT and Windows share the same metro app ecosystem and soon WP will join. It doesn't matter to MS if RT itself was a success or not, as far as the whole ecosystem is doing good.

exactly, rt will sell itself based on the ecosystem that windows 8 is creating. its not a product that has to build an ecosystem itself.

Meanwhile in Cupertino, Apple execs raise their glasses and toast their stunningly easy victory over Microsoft in this particular tablet war (iPad vs. RT). My, how things have changed. Anyone who doesn't see how Microsoft as a company is on the decline is delusional.

1. Surface RT - a failure
2. Windows 8 - despised by millions
3. Windows 8 Phone - not catching on
4. Xbox One - riddled with issues, even before launch
5. Microsoft execs - leaving left & right

Right before our eyes, we are seeing Microsoft implode. Get your popcorn!

Edited by COKid, Sep 25 2013, 2:54pm :

COKid said,
Meanwhile in Cupertino, Apple execs raise their glasses and toast their stunningly easy victory over Microsoft in this particular tablet war (iPad vs. RT). My, how things have changed. Anyone who doesn't see how Microsoft as a company is on the decline is delusional.

1. Surface RT - a failure
2. Windows 8 - despised by millions
And embraced by millions more.
3. Windows 8 Phone - not catching on
Yes it is...
4. Xbox One - riddled with issues, even before launch
And yet they're sold out of preorder stock
5. Microsoft execs - leaving left & right
Doesn't mean a whole lot. Never really has. That's how companies work.

Right before our eyes, we are seeing Microsoft implode. Get your popcorn!

You're going to be really bored, but at least you'll have popcorn.

Good I never saw the long term point in the somewhat gimped RT\arm version, caused more issues then it is really worth for the masses, the Pro on the other hand can be quite the handy, if pricey, tool. At least if they are the only real seller they are more free to what they please with it ( including kill it off if need be).

Wah wah.

What's astounding is that RT is plenty good enough for what most people even do on their desktop computers, much less tablets. But they really just confused people with their marketing (and naming) of it. I think it has a future, but they'll have to make some changes with how they present it.

StandingInAlley said,
If Nokia releases a cheap RT Tablet like how it released L520 for Windows Phone, then this platform can become killer again.

This level of delusion, incredible.

Kalint said,

This level of delusion, incredible.

Funny how someone like you said the same thing once upon a time for Windows Phone platform before Nokia released cheaper Lumia devices and started dominating the platform again and making it popular too

StandingInAlley said,

Funny how someone like you said the same thing once upon a time for Windows Phone platform before Nokia released cheaper Lumia devices and started dominating the platform again and making it popular too

This reminds me of that movie downfall. In this case; reality are the Russians, the fuhrerbunker is Microsoft, and you can be one the delusional people who attack people who are "defeatist".

Kalint said,

This reminds me of that movie downfall. In this case; reality are the Russians, the fuhrerbunker is Microsoft, and you can be one the delusional people who attack people who are "defeatist".

I feel sad for people like you who are pessimists but like to cloud your opinions as a realist. Looking at your previous posts it seems you get quite a kick bashing Ms and their products. I'm glad you are enjoying it. To each their own.

StandingInAlley said,

I feel sad for people like you who are pessimists but like to cloud your opinions as a realist. Looking at your previous posts it seems you get quite a kick bashing Ms and their products. I'm glad you are enjoying it. To each their own.

Can't bash facts. Infact I develop for ASP.NET MVC, and WPF but cant help that what they're doing is just stupid.

StandingInAlley said,
If Nokia releases a cheap RT Tablet like how it released L520 for Windows Phone, then this platform can become killer again.

I'd be interested in a Nokoa RT tablet IF it doesn't have a cellular connection. The extra $100-200 that seems to add to a tablet's price is too high for an RT tablet, IMO. $399 is the most I think an RT tablet can start at.

Realistically, low end Windows Tablets have to compete with Android, not Apple. So that means they're fighting against a diversity of prices, specs, etc (basically, price points).

High end tablets have to compete with Ultrabooks and laptops since they're supposed to be productivity tools.

I don't envy Windows Tablet makers. They've got a lot more competition than their competitors do, IMO.

I, as an IT support person for friends and family, love the RT models. All people do is use word, send emails, and check the internet...all the while they can't get viruses and destroy performance with toolbars! =D

Also they get a lightweight device with good battery life. I think RT has the same market that iOS has, but is just more productive.

UseLess said,
I, as an IT support person for friends and family, love the RT models. All people do is use word, send emails, and check the internet...all the while they can't get viruses and destroy performance with toolbars! =D

Agreed. I spent an hour yesterday fussing with a coworker's personal laptop because she got all sorts of crap on it. Two runs of MalwareBytes seems to have taken care of it, but I've told her several times to stop looking for "free" football streams online (NFL for lunch - she's awesome).

My parents only do email, internet, and light games (Candy Crush, Solitaire, etc), and light word processing. If it wasn't for the small screens, an iPad or Windows RT tablet would be ideal for them. TAs is, my mom (the younger of the two by 10 years) sits on the couch with the Android phone we gave her and plays her little games, does Facebook, etc., between gardening and playing with the dogs.

I think the trap we fall into us we forget we're NOT the average user. Not by a long shot.

I'll probably end up with a Surface 2 because it does come with Office and is cheaper than the Pro 2 but that's the only reason. Still conflicted on the whole thing which is why I skipped the first version of Surface. With that said, I'm really only interested in Surface because it looks like a premium product and I need something that's built to last.

It's up to MS now to keep it alive and support it. IF they get a foot hold and people do buy into it then the manufacturers would come back but I won't hold my breath.

Great.
At least there won't be any inferior devices on the market anymore.

I'm sick and tired of the OEMs that are stuck in their paradigm and continue to produce crappy devices like they always did and forgot the meaning of "innovation".

LMM - you are, in fact, quite representative of those that wish to cage Microsoft. On the one hand, you attack Windows for being dull, while on the other hand, you slamdance any and every attempt to breathe life into the platform. And what makes the whole bit even worse is that most of you have dared praise Linux distributions for not sticking to the status quo, all the while you are forcing, or trying to force, Microsoft into doing the opposite. It makes me wonder if some of you aren't some cabal of fifth-columnists, seeking to sabotage IT from within just because you can.

Keep on, Microsoft!

Actually, RT is very practical on college when you need to do some word processing, notes taking, and pictures.

Only a matter of time now. Maybe if Surface 2 is a flop like the original was (and I don't see why it wont be) then Microsoft will get the idea. Windows RT is a failed platform.

Lord Method Man said,
Only a matter of time now. Maybe if Surface 2 is a flop like the original was (and I don't see why it wont be) then Microsoft will get the idea. Windows RT is a failed platform.

I'd bet my house on surface 2 being a flop

Surface 2 won't sell as hot cake, but it doesn't matter. Windows RT itself is not a separate platform, rather, it is part of the whole metro app ecosystem. They share the same apps as the Intel tablets (Please don't tell me that you only use desktop on an Intel tablet.)

In other words, there is no point to a malware-resistant Microsoft Windows of any sort? Unlike Android, all software for RT is screened - if it doesn't pass security muster, it can't install on RT. (The only other OS that has anything remotely similar is iOS - however, malware HAS gotten through the Apple gauntlet - there have been articles on that here on Neowin itself.) Therefore, merely from a software-security standpoint, RT has it over both iOS and Android. However, RT''s critics are, in fact, attacking RT because it's so secure - as if malware-resistance was some sort of *sin*. (Yet you praise the "security through obscurity" model of OS X - which most OS-neutral IT security experts worth their salt find laughable.) Dell could well be dropping RT temporarily while it reorganizes - it IS about to go private, remember. We have no idea how many other Dell hardware models could have their chop called during the reorganization of Dell as a private entity.

Please - it's not that Microsoft screwed up; it's that we, as users, are rather insistent on caging Microsoft in a glass house. On the one hand, we have criticized Windows for being bland and boring (if not downright dull); however, any and every attempt to change that is slammed, attacked and pummeled into either submission or near-submission.. As much as we talk about wanting things to change, we only accept it from outside of Microsoft and/or Windows.

Yes - the "glass house" is both a pun and a serious comment - on the one hand, we want to blame Microsoft for failing to change Windows, while at the same time being rather Pharonic concerning our own role in building the cage we are putting Microsoft in.

Demanding change and disliking the specific direction of change when it happens aren't mutually exclusive.

If, as you say, we only accept change from outside of Microsoft, then maybe the problem is that Microsoft is doing it wrong rather than some weird perception bias.

Javik said,
I don't recall consumers calling Windows bland and boring, in fact Windows 7 was incredibly popular

And limited, Windows 7 never worked on a mobile device, no one wanted it on any type of tablet and tablets are taking over as the main computing device going forward. Windows, as it was, never did well on anything non-desktop because of the desktop itself.

So tell me, Javik - exactly what were the changes between Vista and 7? (Notice that I did NOT say XP and 7.) Vista was slammed rather hard; however, there were few changes - in code or anywhere else - between Vista and 7. So why was 7 suddenly acceptable?

PGHammer said,
So tell me, Javik - exactly what were the changes between Vista and 7? (Notice that I did NOT say XP and 7.) Vista was slammed rather hard; however, there were few changes - in code or anywhere else - between Vista and 7. So why was 7 suddenly acceptable?

Crawling file operations, the "vista capable" fiasco, worse game performance, software incompatibility issues...

Much of this was addressed later through patches but it all created a stigma on Vista. It's not that 7 is that different, it's that it had the lauch quality Vista would have been expected to have.

Spicoli said,
I think they should drop it too. Who wants a stripped down ipad like thing when you can have a full blown computer? I don't get the point.

Maybe it's the same thing Apple is doing with the 5C. Release a product at a lower price point with less features and basically force people to go for the higher version.

Spicoli said,
I think they should drop it too. Who wants a stripped down ipad like thing when you can have a full blown computer? I don't get the point.

Couldn't you say the same thing about iPad? "Who wants a stripped down OS X?" Because that's what it is, just without Finder, etc.

pantera9 said,

Couldn't you say the same thing about iPad? "Who wants a stripped down OS X?" Because that's what it is, just without Finder, etc.

Yes, but there's no other option if you use Mac. Surface on the other hand has the pro which runs everything I already own.

Spicoli said,
I think they should drop it too. Who wants a stripped down ipad like thing when you can have a full blown computer? I don't get the point.

Who sells a product nobody wants to buy?

virtorio said,
Cost and battery life. Consumption devices have their uses, the issue was Microsoft tried to sell it as more than that.

I think that's quickly going to be come a non-issue. The architecture just needs the ability to switch power modes based on usage. If you're watching a streaming video, a lot of stuff isn't needed. Intel is highly motivated to provide the hardware they need to do that.

coderchi said,

Dude stop trolling it's fckng annoying!

ahhhh, ok....so Dell was selling loads of RT tablets and then decided not to sell them anymore. That makes brilliant business sense.

Dude....please stop your trolling!

If you don't want to debate with me, that's fine. The forum offers an option where you can ignore people. Just try not to swear as you could get into trouble with the mods.

warwagon said,
It's the fact they left the desktop in RT and it was such a horrible name.

Don't think so. If users don't like the fact that the desktop exists in RT - just don't use it. They can even unpin it.

(Written in desktop IE10 on RT)

stevan said,
How could Microsoft screw up so badly?

I've been thinking about this over the last 12 months.

The ONLY answer I can come up with is arrogance

glen8 said,

I've been thinking about this over the last 12 months.

The ONLY answer I can come up with is arrogance

arrogance is still better than ignorance.

obviously you'll be shocked in a few years when you'll finally understand how Windows RT totally made sense when it was launched. It's part of a long term strategy.
Microsoft wants to phase out WIN32 compatibility from consumers PCs as soon as possible. They just need developers to migrate enough of their apps to the Windows Store, and then Windows 10 or 11 Home edition will basically be based on Windows RT, even on x86.

link8506 said,
basically be based on Windows RT, even on x86.

I think you mean "limited to WinRT" as Windows RT is just the ARM-arch of Windows 8, they are identical on every deep down aspect! So being "based on Windows RT" makes 0% sense…

MFH said,

I think you mean "limited to WinRT" as Windows RT is just the ARM-arch of Windows 8, they are identical on every deep down aspect! So being "based on Windows RT" makes 0% sense…

see my comment above.
I'm just trying to simplify when I say that Windows RT will be ported to x86.
what I mean is that the changes introduced in windows RT will be backported to Windows x86 (removal of legacy components, secure boot chain that verifies that win32 apps and drivers are signed by MS).

link8506 said,
obviously you'll be shocked in a few years when you'll finally understand how Windows RT totally made sense when it was launched. It's part of a long term strategy.

A long term strategy that involves alienating manufacturing partners and confusing consumers? Microsoft tried to compete with Android and iOS with a product that was more expensive and had a much more limited ecosystem - the biggest advantage it had was Office and even that was simply a poorly ported version of the desktop version rather than the dedicated touch-version that customers expected.

theyarecomingforyou said,

A long term strategy that involves alienating manufacturing partners and confusing consumers? Microsoft tried to compete with Android and iOS with a product that was more expensive and had a much more limited ecosystem - the biggest advantage it had was Office and even that was simply a poorly ported version of the desktop version rather than the dedicated touch-version that customers expected.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Nobody wants all the problems of a computer on a tablet. That's why ipads took off like they did...even in enterprise. Actually, I think more ipads are in the enterprise than windows tablets.

glen8 said,
Nobody wants all the problems of a computer on a tablet.

Then why do people buy Android? In many ways the problems there are worse than the Win32 desktop.

That's why I love Windows RT. None of the 'problems of a computer on a tablet'

glen8 said,

Couldn't have said it better myself. Nobody wants all the problems of a computer on a tablet.

and yet you fail to realize that Windows RT brings many of the benefits of the desktop OS while keeping the same level of security as iOS/WP.

do you really think computer users will refuse the benefits of migrating from windows to windows RT if that means no more headaches and malwares?


That's why ipads took off like they did...even in enterprise. Actually, I think more ipads are in the enterprise than windows tablets.

iPad in enterprises are mostly limited to reading email. A huge waste of money and productivity when you can have a Windows RT tablet instead for a lower price.

I know some enterprises which have ditched their plans to deploy iPads after preliminary deployments didn't bring good results. Instead they'll deploy windows8 tablets for a much lower cost because they'll have basically no compatibility issues.

I'm feeling really smug right now

ok, come on then....where's all the forum members who slated me a few months ago for saying this would happen?

it was SO obvious, you can't put a desktop OS on a tablet and expect millions of people to buy it. Sorry, doesn't work like that.

Sky News App
Crash
Reboot
Installing Update 4 of 36
Sky News App > Works

LOL

glen8 said,

it was SO obvious, you can't put a desktop OS on a tablet and expect millions of people to buy it. Sorry, doesn't work like that.

That doesn't make any sense. Dell will still make windows tablets. Just not on ARM anymore...

LegendaryRamzi said,

That doesn't make any sense. Dell will still make windows tablets. Just not on ARM anymore...

of course it makes sense.....who wants a desktop OS which can't run x86. Dell selling x86 tablets is fine. It's only RT they are dropping.

I've said from the start RT was a disaster, sales back that up

laserfloyd said,
RT is the tablet version of Windows 8, more or less.

I know right....what a silly decision from MS. They should have developed a tablet OS from the ground up. They have basically ported 8 to the arm platform.

Can someone explain to me why I need DISM on RT?

As stated above, RT is not a desktop OS. Windows 8 has an RT shell but that's about as far as the desktop connection goes.

Majesticmerc said,
Windows RT isn't a desktop OS.

Yet it's identical to Win8, which is a desktop OS, just without the ability to run x86 apps. I'm using it right now.

GreyWolf said,
As stated above, RT is not a desktop OS. Windows 8 has an RT shell but that's about as far as the desktop connection goes.

DISM?

glen8 said,

I know right....what a silly decision from MS. They should have developed a tablet OS from the ground up. They have basically ported 8 to the arm platform.

Can someone explain to me why I need DISM on RT?


My Tablet runs W8.1 Pro and I am perfectly happy with it.

While Windows RT is a horrible name and may be confusing to the customer (including the original post above) it true is not a desktop OS.

glen8 said,
I'm feeling really smug right now

ok, come on then....where's all the forum members who slated me a few months ago for saying this would happen?

it was SO obvious, you can't put a desktop OS on a tablet and expect millions of people to buy it. Sorry, doesn't work like that.

Sky News App
Crash
Reboot
Installing Update 4 of 36
Sky News App > Works

LOL

Holy Shhhhhh dude where is the logic in your comment? you don't want a desktop OS? remove the desktop tile from Metro Interface. Pathetic how you people think.

I think this should have been the case from the start, to provide control over how RT is perceived. I know MS also contributed to the confusion but now its just them making RT (possibly Nokia soon as well) they can focus on a more coherent message about what RT is and what its not - i.e. a competitor to andoid and iOS in the consumer tablet space rather than a full blown laptop/workstation OS.

I guess I'm one of those supporters who think RT should have never been made in the first place. I believe it is also the reason for why the Surface tablets did not to so well initially. I know RT has some benefits but... I still believe Microsoft would have been OK by just releasing the 'Surface Pro' models and forgetting about 'RT' tablets altogether.

este said,
I guess I'm one of those supporters who think RT should have never been made in the first place. I believe it is also the reason for why the Surface tablets did not to so well initially. I know RT has some benefits but... I still believe Microsoft would have been OK by just releasing the 'Surface Pro' models and forgetting about 'RT' tablets altogether.

Windows RT still has a bright future. Windows RT is basically the new Windows Home edition.

in 5years from now, Windows RT will certainly replace Home versions of windows, and will certainly be available for x86 devices too. As we can see from the way Microsoft is naming Surface RT 2 (they're simply calling it Surface 2), Microsoft is pushing Windows RT for home users, and windows 8 for professionals and advanced users, which is smart because win32 compatibility should be limited to professional and server versions of Windows, and no longer available to regular users.

having unsandboxed (win32) apps on a consumer OS is no longer viable because most people are too easily tricked into installing malicious apps or apps bundling toolbars and adwares on their system. The same problems exists on osx and desktop Linux. None of the currents desktop OSes are malware proof / idiot proof. That's why bringing windows RT to desktop and laptop PCs will totally make sense, once people can find everything they need in the windows store.

even Windows RT 8.0 has much more features than Android and iOS, and once the Windows Store becomes popular enough, most OEMs will start building Windows RT devices again.


Anybody who says that MS should just kill Windows RT has absolutely no clue about the future of Windows and personal computing in general.

My main point is simply; whats the point? It seems like the Surface Pro 2 will be a fantastic device by itself. Improved performance, better battery life, etc and it will only continue to get better as the technology improves. Why segment the market they are trying to badly to break into with products that confuse the average consumer? I know I don't speak for the masses when I say this, but I would NEVER buy a 'Surface RT' product when I can get the 'Surface Pro' which doesn't handcuff me in anything I am trying to do with the device. Isnt the idea of having ONE tablet that does everything at full power more appealing to the majority of people out there?

LegendaryRamzi said,
You are mixing up Windows RT and WinRT link8506.
Windows RT is windows for ARM.
WinRT is the new sandboxed environment.

I'm a developer, I know the difference between WinRT and Windows RT

What I'm trying to say is that Windows RT currently runs only on ARM CPUs, but at some point, it will be ported to x86 CPUs too and replace the Home edition of Windows.

basically, Windows RT for x86 would be just like a regular Windows x86, but where only desktop apps digitally signed by Microsoft are able to run (however at some point the desktop will be dropped too, so it will just be a matter of running WinRT apps from the store).

este said,
My main point is simply; whats the point? It seems like the Surface Pro 2 will be a fantastic device by itself. Improved performance, better battery life, etc and it will only continue to get better as the technology improves. Why segment the market they are trying to badly to break into with products that confuse the average consumer? I know I don't speak for the masses when I say this, but I would NEVER buy a 'Surface RT' product when I can get the 'Surface Pro' which doesn't handcuff me in anything I am trying to do with the device. Isnt the idea of having ONE tablet that does everything at full power more appealing to the majority of people out there?


most people I know don't use any Win32 app on Windows besides IE, skype, and Office.

many of them often fall victim to scams like "please install this plugin to see that porn video" or "please run this (exe) file otherwise Microsoft will delete your messenger account".

why would these people need Windows 8 rather than Windows RT?

They just need IE, flash player, and the ability to open Office documents and print them.

for them, i would absolutely recommend to buy 15"laptops running Windows RT, if only they existed!

they absolutely don't need more than what comes with Windows RT. Allowing them to run random EXE files can only hurt them.

I'm not talking about complete idiots. I'm talking about regular people, who are educated, but they are not computer professional and with so many scams out there, it's likely that at some point they will run a malicious EXE, really thinking it's just something like a required plugin update.

link8506 said,

What I'm trying to say is that Windows RT currently runs only on ARM CPUs, but at some point, it will be ported to x86 CPUs too

Windows RT will never be ported to x86 because that version already exists. It's windows 8. The way you are wording it makes people believe that if windows RT fails win32 will continue... Windows RT can fail tomorrow, but it will not change anything. Win32 is still on the way out.

LegendaryRamzi said,
Win32 is still on the way out.

Any (legitimate) references to support such a bold statement? Windows RT should have never been - the proof is in every OEM that *doesn't* want to carry it and the millions of consumers who don't want it. Win32 still has a bright future for many, many years to come - the proof is in every single OEM who *does* and *has been* carrying it. There is no chance in hell Win32 will be going anywhere this decade.

LegendaryRamzi said,

Windows RT will never be ported to x86 because that version already exists.

True, but the "100% sandboxing model" of Windows RT is missing on Windows 8 and for a pure HOME edition that may very well be the future of Windows…

LegendaryRamzi said,

Windows RT will never be ported to x86 because that version already exists. It's windows 8.

yes, Windows RT is a port from Windows 8 to ARM.
but the principles behind windows RT (removal of some legacy components, and secure boot chain preventing to run EXE files not signed by Microsoft) will be backported to Windows x86, which will become the same thing as the current Windows RT, and should share the same commercial name. Basically it should become the new Home edition of Windows.


The way you are wording it makes people believe that if windows RT fails win32 will continue... Windows RT can fail tomorrow, but it will not change anything. Win32 is still on the way out.

you misread me. I said Windows RT is the future because MS wants to phase out Win32 as soon as possible, at least for home users.
Windows RT may be a commercial failure in term of sales (for now), but at some point, Windows RT (or whatever name it will have on x86) will be on every laptop and desktops aimed at Home users and small business users.

Obry said,

Any (legitimate) references to support such a bold statement? Windows RT should have never been - the proof is in every OEM that *doesn't* want to carry it and the millions of consumers who don't want it. Win32 still has a bright future for many, many years to come - the proof is in every single OEM who *does* and *has been* carrying it. There is no chance in hell Win32 will be going anywhere this decade.

for enterprise users and servers, win32 will still be there for decades.

however, for home users (and businesses not relying on custom made legacy software), it will take less than 10 years to kill win32. I'm pretty sure MS will do it in less than 5years.

no written references of course, but for what it's worth, I've been able to talk with a the head of a product team at MS at the Build 2011, and he told me the short term plan is to have as much WinRT apps as possible in the store so that home and business users won't ever need win32 compatibility in the future.

at build 2012, an evangelist also told to a few of us that he is convinced that win32 and the desktop will be gone in 10years.

este said,
I guess I'm one of those supporters who think RT should have never been made in the first place. I believe it is also the reason for why the Surface tablets did not to so well initially. I know RT has some benefits but... I still believe Microsoft would have been OK by just releasing the 'Surface Pro' models and forgetting about 'RT' tablets altogether.

Let me guess you are one of the people that loves Ipads and Chromebooks yet don't find the value in Surface 2. Amazing how simple people minds work oh I guess it doesn't.

coderchi said,

Let me guess you are one of the people that loves Ipads and Chromebooks yet don't find the value in Surface 2. Amazing how simple people minds work oh I guess it doesn't.

that's schizophrenia.

seems to affect many tech pundits as well

funny how Windows RT has managed to reveal how incoherent the minds of self proclaimed tech experts is!

I fix rows of toolbars, user installed Malware, for everyday consumers that simply do not know better how to stay out of trouble on real computers every single day, multiple times a day. RT is for them. Consumers NEED RT. They are not savvy enough to stay out of trouble, and why should they be? They are just trying to check email, and buy crap on Amazon, and watch Netflix.

YOU can't fix stupid, but RT can.

yowanvista said,

Yes indeed, only in your reality distortion field.

yeah, right. Why do you even bother to comment if you have absolutely nothing to say?

win32 won't live forever, and it is being replaced by WinRT. How hard is it to understand that Windows is going to become like Windows RT?

i guess you think the high level MS employees I talked with were wrong and you are right?

Obry said,

Any (legitimate) references to support such a bold statement?

Nope, but I'll try to convince you:
They are actively trying to get rid of the desktop by removing all dependency on it (startmenu, control panel, devices, networking, ...)
They are rewriting their software in WinRT (office, skype, linq, skydrive, ...)
WinRT is a first class citizen in windows 8 and they are not trying to hide this.
What they are doing is a massive task and reversing this would be disaster because they are so heavily invested into this.
They are not dumping win32, they are parking it as legacy, end of the line... the future is a clean break.
I know WinRT still uses win32, but they still have the option to remove it later, which they didn't have before.

link8506 said,

the principles behind windows RT (removal of some legacy components, and secure boot chain preventing to run EXE files not signed by Microsoft)

I understand what you are saying, and I agree with everything you say.
But saying Windows RT and meaning the principles behind Windows RT are just
contributing to the fact that still so many people (even tech) are confused by Windows RT,
but that's not your fault at all.

coderchi said,

Let me guess you are one of the people that loves Ipads and Chromebooks yet don't find the value in Surface 2. Amazing how simple people minds work oh I guess it doesn't.


What? Not at all actually. Maybe I should have prefaced my initial statement by saying that I am a proud owner of a Surface Pro. I love the device. With that and my main desktop rig I am all set. I just don't see the point of buying a Surface 2 when the Pro model does everything better (except battery life but I never had a problem regarding that & my Pro.)

The start menu got brought back in Windows 8.1. Also an option to boot straight to the desktop, so did an option to go straight to the all apps screen when click the start button. I just don't think many people are sold on the whole Metro thing. They are yet to do a single Metro app that actually wows anyone who has more than two brain cells. 99% of the apps in the Windows Store are complete junk. Even their OneNote metro app is a complete junk. I have a Lenovo X1 and prefer using OneNote 2013 in touch mode rather than this Metro abomination that is OneNote every day, all day. Just because they are pushing something so hard and throwing so much money at it doesn't mean it will work. As people continue to flock over to iOS/OS X and Android because Windows 7 is no more and people simply continue to hate Windows 8 then decisions can get reverted quickly. At my workplace (small business so we're very flexible) any new PC that they buy the first thing they do is downgrade to Windows 7. I see them also buying a lot of Macs for people who don't need anything other than a web browser, email client, IM app and Office from time-to-time. Maybe they will prove me wrong. I like to keep an open mind. But from what I've seen so far Metro and WinRT has been a complete and utter disaster. I keep trying to get used to the new mail app (which although improved is still pathetic), the photo gallery is a complete disaster, the Metro SkyDrive is a complete and utter failure, Metro Skype is practically useless for working people who simply need a small floating window quickly accessible only from time-to-time... None of the Metro stuff can step on its desktop equivalent's little toe - plain and simple. And most people don't like it. I'm feel like the only idiot at work who uses Windows 8 lately...

Edited by Obry, Sep 25 2013, 4:46pm :

link8506 said,

however, for home users (and businesses not relying on custom made legacy software), it will take less than 10 years to kill win32. I'm pretty sure MS will do it in less than 5years.

Nearly all businesses have some component of legacy software somewhere down the line. If it works you don't' replace it and Microsoft's upgrade success relies in allowing incremental OS upgrades why maintaining legacy support. This is the reason old VB6 and older apps can still be made to work fine even in Windows 8.

You only need to look at how successful Microsoft has been in "eradicating" IE6 to see how successful they are at removing legacy systems. 5 Years is a cloud dream even to the home user. Sure most wont care however the majority of current apps are designed for the desktop and theirs no way the Win32 architecture is going anywhere. Even people that have had a laptop a couple of years will have games etc they will still expect to run in a couple of years.

Besides what are they going to replace it with WinRT? Sure it's nice for tablets and it's working great in that area pushing casual users to tablets and taking that part of the "pc market" however for the vast majority of PC users who actually want to keep productivity a desktop environment IS the pc.

Until Microsoft make metro a a serious solution FOR the desktop not just as a one app at a time tablet os replacement and allow apps to be windowed overlaid and interact with each other then it wont become a replacement for Win32 anytime soon. If anything it's a step backwards from win32.

Besides Microsoft release something shiny every few years and call it the next best thing..... it generally dies under a rock after a couple of years simply because uptake is slow and Microsoft abandon it making developers wary about learning and developing for new platforms.

link8506 said,

I'm a developer, I know the difference between WinRT and Windows RT

What I'm trying to say is that Windows RT currently runs only on ARM CPUs, but at some point, it will be ported to x86 CPUs too and replace the Home edition of Windows.

basically, Windows RT for x86 would be just like a regular Windows x86, but where only desktop apps digitally signed by Microsoft are able to run (however at some point the desktop will be dropped too, so it will just be a matter of running WinRT apps from the store).

I also think that Windows RT has a long future, it'll be what runs on Phones to at some point, then developers will have WinRT apps that run on phones, phablets and tablets with ease. As far as it being the Home version of Windows, well, if MS does open it up to run signed desktop apps from the store then I agree it has a chance to become a replacement, a very secure one at that with full Windows x86 being the "Pro" version for those who need an unlocked desktop and so on.

I could see it happening in time, heck I think the desktop will actually be gone or hidden on Windows RT in a year or 2 tops, specially on mini tablets.

Obry said,
The start menu got brought back in Windows 8.1.

This is not true, they put the button back, not the menu.
Anyway you have to understand that they are at the start of winRT. It is logical that these new apps aren't better or as good as their 10 year old win32 counterparts. It is going to take time and effort, but you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs.

link8506 said,

yeah, right. Why do you even bother to comment if you have absolutely nothing to say?

win32 won't live forever, and it is being replaced by WinRT. How hard is it to understand that Windows is going to become like Windows RT?

i guess you think the high level MS employees I talked with were wrong and you are right?


Keep telling that to yourself.. Not sure if you're actually trolling but win32 coupled with .Net is far more robust and feature complete that that those insignificant Metro garbage. A decade of win32 evolution proves it, the API is mature. At least win32 doesn't lock developers onto a restricted platform model where one cannot exert his freedom to create anything without the usage of Microsoft's own dumbed down APIs. (Reason for which Firefox in Metro won't be as powerful as on the desktop due to engine restrictions). Metro looks childish and horrible on a desktop, the people who worked on it seriously need to be fired or demoted.

Windows RT is much more powerful than Windows Phone. I fail to see why Windows Phone OS continues to exist and be developed. How are people so blind to this? Look at how slow WP development is. RT8.1 is already updated alongside Win8.1 while WP8.1 is delayed to sometime next year. Compare IE on RT with Flash and unlimited tabs/windows to the pathetic IE experience on WP8. Look at how WP lacks the ability to update core apps through the store like email and music while RT is able to be updated constantly alongside Windows 8 apps. Look at how much faster the RT app store is growing than WP8 app store. RT should not die, RT should take Windows Phones place. In 1 year RT will have the same number of apps it took WP 3 years to achieve.

And why does it matter if MS/Nokia are the only manufacturers making RT? The app store isn't dependent upon Surface sales to attract devs since it uses the same app store. Amazon is the only company making Fire OS tablets. Apple is the only company making iOS tablets. While widespread adoption of RT by OEMs might be helpful, it is not essential and even has its drawbacks. Providing driver updates and patches for tons of OEMs slows down MS development and results in potentially a worse experience for everyone. I do think they should stay open to licensing, but the business model for RT should be to profit on the hardware and services. That is after all the company's new mission statement.

Avatar Roku said,
Windows RT is much more powerful than Windows Phone. I fail to see why Windows Phone OS continues to exist and be developed. How are people so blind to this? Look at how slow WP development is. RT8.1 is already updated alongside Win8.1 while WP8.1 is delayed to sometime next year. Compare IE on RT with Flash and unlimited tabs/windows to the pathetic IE experience on WP8. Look at how WP lacks the ability to update core apps through the store like email and music while RT is able to be updated constantly alongside Windows 8 apps. Look at how much faster the RT app store is growing than WP8 app store. RT should not die, RT should take Windows Phones place. In 1 year RT will have the same number of apps it took WP 3 years to achieve.

And why does it matter if MS/Nokia are the only manufacturers making RT? The app store isn't dependent upon Surface sales to attract devs since it uses the same app store. Amazon is the only company making Fire OS tablets. Apple is the only company making iOS tablets. While widespread adoption of RT by OEMs might be helpful, it is not essential and even has its drawbacks. Providing driver updates and patches for tons of OEMs slows down MS development and results in potentially a worse experience for everyone. I do think they should stay open to licensing, but the business model for RT should be to profit on the hardware and services. That is after all the company's new mission statement.

It's still around because it came first, has more apps and developers and because it scales way lower than Windows RT does right now. With v8.1 they added support for screens as small as 7" but can it go lower to fit on say a 4" smartphone? Not yet, so they can't just take Windows RT as it is and slap it on a smartphone, though I bet they can get it to run. There's still lots of work to do to get it to fit that type of small device but I think the best thing to do is take the Windows RT core, the kernel and all the subsystems etc minus the top UI layer and have that be the next Windows Phone OS. Then slap the WP UI, updated of course with new things, on top of the Windows RT core. In the end the apps will run and work the same on both, and scale from 4" up to 8" or even 10" without developers having to do much work and then the ecosystem grows because you've just added phone and tablet together into one, one big store for both devices.

So I have no doubt RT will take over WP but as to why WP is still around and being worked on it's because RT can't take it's place yet. Maybe a year from now it will be ready to do so, even then though I expect that they're going to keep the Windows Phone name for the OS, or maybe not, they could switch it over to just Windows RT as well if the apps run on phone and tablets. We'll see how it is a year from now.

yowanvista said,

Keep telling that to yourself.. Not sure if you're actually trolling but win32 coupled with .Net is far more robust and feature complete that that those insignificant Metro garbage. A decade of win32 evolution proves it, the API is mature. At least win32 doesn't lock developers onto a restricted platform model where one cannot exert his freedom to create anything without the usage of Microsoft's own dumbed down APIs. (Reason for which Firefox in Metro won't be as powerful as on the desktop due to engine restrictions). Metro looks childish and horrible on a desktop, the people who worked on it seriously need to be fired or demoted.

I'm a developer, I know how great win32 and .net are.
And I don't even develop WinRT apps (yet).

however, I'm open minded enough to know that unsandboxed win32 or .net apps (or osx or desktop Linux apps) are not restricted enough, and keeping compatibility with these apps expose users to security risks that can be avoided by allowing only sandboxed apps, like WinRT apps.


as for the restrictions imposed by WinRT, they are required to guarantee that random apps installed by the user won't be able to do any damage to the users data or steal any data.

furthermore, WinRT is much less restricted than iOS which doesn't even apps to share/edit documents from a common storage location, which makes the iPad useless for productivity.

jimmyfal said,
YOU can't fix stupid, but RT can.

Should we lobotomize them as well? Why cater the entire PC industry to the lowest denominator? And what will this paradigm shift do to the power user and gamer communities?

link8506 said,

Windows RT still has a bright future. Windows RT is basically the new Windows Home edition.

Edit: afterthought...I also think that by opening up into markets like appliances, because people need appliances, they will get used to the Windows style menu thus maybe increasing sales in the future. Kinda like getting peoples attention without being to blunt about it.

in 5years from now, Windows RT will certainly replace Home versions of windows, and will certainly be available for x86 devices too. As we can see from the way Microsoft is naming Surface RT 2 (they're simply calling it Surface 2), Microsoft is pushing Windows RT for home users, and windows 8 for professionals and advanced users, which is smart because win32 compatibility should be limited to professional and server versions of Windows, and no longer available to regular users.

having unsandboxed (win32) apps on a consumer OS is no longer viable because most people are too easily tricked into installing malicious apps or apps bundling toolbars and adwares on their system. The same problems exists on osx and desktop Linux. None of the currents desktop OSes are malware proof / idiot proof. That's why bringing windows RT to desktop and laptop PCs will totally make sense, once people can find everything they need in the windows store.

even Windows RT 8.0 has much more features than Android and iOS, and once the Windows Store becomes popular enough, most OEMs will start building Windows RT devices again.


Anybody who says that MS should just kill Windows RT has absolutely no clue about the future of Windows and personal computing in general.

yeah windows RT is a great operating system but unfortunately it has come out much later than it's counterparts. both Android and iOS have been around for a very long time, and if we are talking about 'home' computing, most of those users are already happy with iOS/or android. The only reason one would use Windows is

A) used it for a long time and is happy with it
B) using it to develop applications

the traditional home user wants something easier than windows thus why he chooses to go with iOS or Android. Home users are already satisfied.

Where Microsoft should target the RT are mobile OS's like GPS's or maybe even a microwave menu screen or just something innovative where they can actually build a great infrastructure together with other companies.


Windows 8 Pro is the only thing worth keeping around.