| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |
| 'What is Windows RT? Redmond, we have a problem' |
| By Thom Holwerda, submitted by MOS6510 on 2012-10-21 16:13:31 |
| "I've been writing about Windows for almost 20 years, and I feel like I've kind of seen it all. But for the past several days, I've been struggling under the weight of the most brutal email onslaught I've ever endured over these two decades. And if my email is any indication, and I believe it is, the majority of people out there have absolutely no idea what Windows RT is. This is a problem." When even Paul Thurrot is worried, you can be sure it is, actually, a problem. We're going to see and hear about a lot of frustrated customer who can't load up their 1997 copy of Awesome Garden Designer 2.0 Deluxe. |
|
| RE: Comment by sagum |
| By Vanders on 2012-10-21 22:48:35 |
|
> I personally think Microsoft dropped the ball when they made Office a desktop App for RT. It should really have been Metro (apps for windows 8 ofc), metro only and the desktop itself should have been disabled for RT devices. This is not your fault, bit I think this quote highlights the problems Microsoft face. A desktop app for RT? Why is that different from Metro? How is the same? What about the desktop? Microsoft have confused themselves, let alone us. |
 - Score: 6 |
| RE: A couple of weird claims in Thurrott's article |
| By olefiver on 2012-10-21 23:19:13 |
|
> Windows RT is not a computer operating system. Windows RT is an operating system for mobile devices. "it's not a car, it's a transport system for humans" "it's not a TV, it's a remote viewing terminal for broadcasted entertainment" "it's not a bed, it's sleep facilitator" ... it's not a moon, it's a spacestation |
| - Score: 5 |
| RE[4]: Welcome to the reality people |
| By Dekonega on 2012-10-21 23:22:08 |
|
> Anyways, what difference does the term PC make? The point is that small light tablets and smartphones are taking the former roles of conventional desktops and laptops for things like casual web browsing and gaming, while conventional personal computers are now used more often for specific tasks requiring typing, more precision, and more screen real estate. A lot of difference in minds of the people and how they see technology around them, and how it would affect their lives when they understand how wonderful age we are living right now. However you're probably right that if everybody started using "PC" for the category I'm trying to explain here, and started using "The Microsoft platform" to refer IBM-PC clones with Intel chips running Windows and "The Microsoft ARM platform" to refer the Windows RT, it would just be a change of the word, and world would move on as usual. However even that would help make it easier to explain the general categories of the computers for people, and how not all the computers are the same. And that's why I'd like to point out that this isn't a new behaviour where new devices take roles of other older devices. And why we are letting people of the past, who had no understanding on how we could use our generation's devices, define the actual terms and words for these new devices which don't fit to them at all? And why should I pay for removal of artificial restrictions to hardware I want to tinker with? Why should I be labelled as a cracker when I open device I paid for wide open to make it do something more useful? Explaining how much more we are using personal computers might help with these issues. The State of the Personal Computer market as of today is a result of lack of competition in PC architectures. 30 years ago market had several different PCs competing all each other. Those other systems died because they weren't able to compete. Things were different. People now might not even consider other PCs PCs just because the only PC which survived that era was the IBM-PC and clones which were really crappy devices with all kinds of limitations and so much time has passed when it's been de facto [desktop] PC on the market. We are living a kind of digital dark age already because we are using the crappy hardware solutions which don't drive general good for everybody, we are in essentially locked into Intel's hardware architecture and Microsoft's Windows software platform. If IBM-PC had to really compete against a legacy free PC, it wouldn't be able to do it. And that's essentially what we are seeing here in forms of iPad and other new wave of PCs. I just wish that the platforms would be more open for innovation and competitiveness. The iPad is a very closed in nature. And Windows is going to be even more closed. I'd much more see hardware which is open for changes, and open for other software platforms. Explaining the very nature of the personal computers would help more people realise this too. Like I wrote earlier, Famicom or NES, as it's also known, is a complete PC. You can plug in a keyboard, do BASIC programming, use disk drive to save and load programs, connect to BBS boards and do punch of other stuff with it. It's a PC like Commodore 64 is a PC. Oh hell, it even sports similar CPU as in C=64 because the origin is the MOS Technologies. Still it's _only_ considered to be _just_ a gaming device. The point isn't the primary advertised function either. iPad and smartphones are programmable devices. You can create applications for them. You can do more with them than just a single task of reading a book or making a phone call. Personal Computer can handle these two very personal data flows and manage them for you. iPad and a generic smartphone aren't different devices, they are very close to each other. You should consider iPads relationship with iPhone. What else iPhone is than a iPad but with a phone feature? Yes, it comes with a different form factor, but at the same time it's using same CPU, same RAM and the same GPU and further more same software stack inc. the OS itself. (yes, I simplified this comparison a little bit to make it easier to understand) Consumers are used to buying things aimed for single purpose. But this isn't the case in near future where a single device will perform even more tasks of various devices. Will there even be a devices primarily aimed for specific tasks unless they're mission critical? > In that sense, iPads and similar tablets should be called nanocomputers, and smartphones should be called picocomputers. They are different sized devices with different purposes. The Reasons I wouldn't call tablet devices such as iPad nano computers are the same I explained earlier. The different sized devices with different purpose doesn't give a privilege to be a whole different computer. There's no split between PC/Linux/Mac. PC is a category for various consumer devices, Linux is a kernel, and Mac or Macintosh is specific brand of certain kind of PCs. And to make it clear, while I think that the form factor is just one point to consider, I don't find it as the only one we should consider as the base of the definition for the PC. We should primarily be considering the actual usage. I personally consider the usage to be the primary defining factor. If purpose of the computer device is to manage your personal data flow, how it isn't a personal computer? > The largest of supercomputers and the smallest of android smartphones run Linux. Does that make them all PCs? Nope. We aren't just talking about OSes here. The main difference between supercomputer running GNU/Linux and smartphone running GNU/Linux is that the supercomputer doesn't manage your personal data flow. There's also the hardware, cost, maintenance, personel, and work loads, to be considered among many other factors. The super computer cannot be your personal device. You also cannot own a supercomputer. Supercomputer rarely is consumer affordable and it's also not a versatile. Super computer also requires educated technicians to use them. You just cannot sit down and start browsing web. Super Computers also tend to be batch processed or time-shared systems. In my opinion the Personal Computer doesn't imply size, and Personal Computers as a category are something that includes really wide variety of devices. ... I tried to keep this short and simple but it's too much. Maybe I should write a book about the topic? At least an essay... ( ^^); Edited 2012-10-21 23:30 UTC |
| - Score: 1 |
| Why people love(d) Windows |
| By Zobeid on 2012-10-21 23:31:33 |
|
We need to be aware of the myth, the fairy tale, that is believed by so many ordinary people who don't follow computing all that closely. And it goes something like this... "In the beginning there was the IBM PC and there was the Macintosh. They had a great battle and the PC won and became the industry standard. That's why you can get PC software at Wal-Mart, not Mac stuff. Yeah, there are a few weirdos who still use Macs for some reason, like they can't get it through their heads that the PC is the winner and the Mac is the loser. Probably the same people who vote Libertarian, haha! They probably still have Betamax VCRs too, haha!" This was the myth that the whole Microsoft empire was built upon, and it was distressingly close to the truth for a while. Now everything has changed, but Microsoft haven't quite figured it out. They've convinced themselves that they owe their success to everybody loving the Microsoft Windows brand, and loving the look-and-feel of Windows, and trusting Windows, etc. And of course, it's not true. Nobody (except Paul Thurrott of course!) ever really liked Windows that much, based on its own merits. They just liked being able to get software for their computer at Wal-Mart. And now that Wal-Mart is no longer the world's source for Awesome Garden Designer 2.0 Deluxe For Windows, public "loyalty" to Windows is evaporating like spilled soda on a summer day. This is why Microsoft made the mistake of producing an OS that carries the Windows name, looks and feels like Windows, but doesn't actually run Windows programs -- the one thing about Windows that people actually cared about. This will not end well. |
| - Score: 12 |
| RE[2]: Welcome to the reality people |
| By viton on 2012-10-22 00:50:49 |
|
You're wrong http://splorp.tumblr.com/post/27... Edited 2012-10-22 00:53 UTC |
| - Score: 5 |
| RE[2]: Welcome to the reality people |
| By Dekonega on 2012-10-22 01:15:25 |
|
> No, PCs are desktop or laptop computers that run Windows on Intel-compatible hardware, and are descendent from the original IBM PC. Other systems have a similar aspect, but they are not PCs. Not true. If you had never used any other PC than IBM-PC, what would you call a device that is a PC but not an IBM-PC? I know I'd call it a PC, but how about you? > This is not a technical issue, it is a matter of language. The term "PC" has been used for 20+ years to describe Windows on Intel, and is the generally accepted definition of the word. This is why it is necessary to provide extra context when using "PC" to describe other objects, but not when describing Windows desktops. Things haven't always been like that. And that's when things were fine, and clear to understand. The acronym "PC" also suffers partially from effect similar to "Rollerblade effect". Late 80s there was a company that manufactured in-line roller-skates branded "Rollerblades". Their product was so immensely popular that some people even today call all kinds of roller-skates "roller-blades". 30 years ago things were different. Language was different also. For 20 years we have suffered under rule of single platform to the point that only few of us can remember any more the time when there where several consumer targeted computers on the market. All of them where personal computers. Some where aimed for professionals and some cheaper machines were marketed as a "home computers". However for example in Commodore 64 was marketed and openly adversited as a "Personal Computer" and it was know as a cheap education PC. However almost none of these PCs where compatible with each other. But they were different, and that kind of hardware and software competition gave us the best of the best innovation. I'll try to be quick about this explanation (so it might have flaws)... World's largest computer company IBM considered personal computer markets as a hobby. And they didn't have a very solid plan about that. They merely wanted to compete against rising threat of Apple and Commodore to their business. They had to quickly build something as an answer to that, and took stock shelve parts for almost everything, and then bought OS else where because they where in a hurry. And so, IBM released a very expensive "Model 5150" (None of the IBM computers had any brand names like Macintosh, Amiga, or MSX. Just this set of numbers.) approx. 30 years ago. A machine with little to none personality. A Cold corporate computer by very definition. However the hardware was left open accidentally, and software was licensed from a third party that had permission to sell their software also to other parties. That made it go to the history books. What made IBM-PC popular was the availability of software. At first it only had IBM's offerings. But when other manufactures started to produce cheaper but better versions of the original model 5150 and it's follow ups even more software writers got in. And that essentially made other platforms die. That however didn't prevent Amiga from being better PC from every aspect. It was actually so much ahead of it's time that people couldn't even describe it. It's very sad thing that Commodore didn't take the Sun's offering on starting to manufacture cheap UNIX desktops based on Amiga hardware. The world could be very different from what it is now. Anyway... Compaq was the first company to legally clone the system and sell theirs as "IBM-Compatible". And no matter what clone system you wanted it was almost always "IBM-compatible". Until "IBM" was dropped in favour for "PC-compatible". That change of wording happened in late 90s. And last game I ever remember having had in my hands to call itself to be made for "IBM-PC or 100% Compatibles" was Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2 released 1999. > This is why the phrase "personal computing devices" is becoming common when referring to tablets and smartphones. Note that they also have their own names for the class of object. What I'm explaining here is that there are maybe four or five kinds of computers in the world. And everything can be classified under these large major categories. Each of them split into several sub-classes.. Among many others. And these can be split into other subclasses of their own. And so forth. Acronym "PC" means one major top category. But it's also a nick name for one specific kind of a PC. I'm arguing here that it would be better if people would be aware of this instead of blindly believing that that everything that has Intel chips and Microsoft software is a PC. With Windows RT, Microsoft is allowing us to break free from Intel's dominance. I god hope that either two things will happen with Windows RT being released. At least it's sure that people might learn that Windows + Intel isn't the only way that exists. This lesson is maybe a harsh one, and I hope people learn before Microsoft gives up on this point. I'm sure they have their own motives for doing this. But either people are driven to GNU/Linux (unlikely due software compatibility), or ARM will take over the Intel forcing true competition to occur on a frozen market. ARM is already fiercely competing. They are the pagan burning Intel's holy church. And that's a very good thing. =) However my own prediction is that Windows RT will fail on market due it not being capable of running legacy applications. Microsoft has made a huge mistake in allowing the legacy desktop to be included. It would have been better to release the Windows RT without the legacy desktop feature. |
| - Score: 1 |
| RE: Windoes RT != Windows |
| By phoenix on 2012-10-22 03:05:11 |
|
No, it's not. Windows 3.1 and Windows NT 3.1 were out at the same time, and ran on different CPU architectures and apps for one were not guaranteed to work on the other. And not all apps were available for all CPU archs. Windows 95 and Windows 2000 were out at the same time, and ran on different CPU architectures. And apps for one were not guaranteed to work on the other. Windows CE was also available around the same time as NT and 9x, and was a completely separate OS, with a separate kernel, userland, runtimes, etc. And ran on different CPU archs. And the apps were not portable between the OSes. There's really no difference between those situations in the past, and the situation with now with Windows RT and Windows 8. |
| - Score: 3 |
| RE[2]: Comment by sagum |
| By sagum on 2012-10-22 08:16:55 |
|
> > I personally think Microsoft dropped the ball when they made Office a desktop App for RT. It should really have been Metro (apps for windows 8 ofc), metro only and the desktop itself should have been disabled for RT devices. This is not your fault, bit I think this quote highlights the problems Microsoft face. A desktop app for RT? Why is that different from Metro? How is the same? What about the desktop? Microsoft have confused themselves, let alone us. RT just means its an ARM powered device. Microsoft decided to lock down the desktop of ARM compiled apps for what ever reason, be it SDK/API or something else. Where as Metro apps work across the platforms without users having to worry if they're x86 or ARM versions to be installed so I can see why they've limited the desktop apps in that sense. The only thing I can think of is that the Metro UI for all the crital system components is not ready for a true replacement, meaning users would need to fall back to the desktop to fix it still. If this is (and it seems like it), I'd have prefered the desktop when in safe mode or running as Admin with Office as metro app. |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE[2]: Welcome to the reality people |
| By Laurence on 2012-10-22 09:14:49 |
|
> Well, "PC" was what IBMs original IBM PC was called. It was the first device to use the term. So, home computers with non-IBM PC compatible architecture are not really PCs. They are home computers. The term "Personal Computer" was commonly used for home or microcomputers. In fact my Amstrad CPC 464, Locomotive BASIC + Zilog Z80 CPU, physically had "Personal Computer" branded on it in metallic lettering. |
| - Score: 6 |
| RE: Why people love(d) Windows |
| By Chrispynutt on 2012-10-22 10:11:54 |
|
> This is why Microsoft made the mistake of producing an OS that carries the Windows name, looks and feels like Windows, but doesn't actually run Windows programs -- the one thing about Windows that people actually cared about. This will not end well. Actually they made an OS that carries the Windows name and that is about it. RT doesn't have a Windows look and feel at all. So its unfamiliar and incompatible. |
| - Score: 2 |
| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |