09-12-2014 06:31 AM
124 12345
tools
  1. DoctorSaline's Avatar
    I don't know the technical details, but the Nvidia Tegra 4 processor in my Surface 2 is impressive. Games are slick and multitasking is the best I've ever seen in ANY device. It runs Office 2013 as good as my Lenovo Yoga laptop. The Surface 2 has accepted any peripheral I have attached. Printers, scanners, mice, pointers. HDMI output is great on the big screen. I'm sure there are some devices that are not compatible, but I haven't come across them yet. I hate comparing the Surface to an iPad or Android device, but it's not even close... the Surface blows them away for productivity and holds its own for fun and games.
    Wow! That is pretty awesome. I can't imagine why didn't it get popular support from consumers. Perhaps the general public got confused. I'm sure next Surface with dedicated touch optimized office suite sans desktop UI will do pretty great. Just hope Microsoft don't take away it's driver support options for USBs, printers and everything else.
    Also, here's to hoping that Microsoft brings devices support to Windows Phone too with Threshold.
    Last edited by DoctorSaline; 08-04-2014 at 12:46 PM.
    08-04-2014 12:12 PM
  2. DoctorSaline's Avatar
    Also, it would be pretty great if Surface 3 also comes with Pen input support and Adobe Suite either through ARM compiler or touch version for ARM.
    Also, it would be pretty awesome if similar set of features can debut with Windows Phone Threshold too. I'm raising my hopes.
    Last edited by DoctorSaline; 08-04-2014 at 12:48 PM.
    08-04-2014 12:16 PM
  3. Michael Alan Goff's Avatar
    Alright! So basically, ARM can potentially kill x86 in future but before that Microsoft wants to build its ecosystem for ARM based Windows/WP and their dominant x86 market share is the bait for developers which will help build ecosystem of Windows tablets(ARM), Windows Phone and XBox? Right?
    That could very well be the case. I do know that Microsoft wants to use ARM to, at the very least, light a fire under Intel's rear to get them to start working harder.
    DoctorSaline likes this.
    08-04-2014 01:57 PM
  4. David P2's Avatar
    That could very well be the case. I do know that Microsoft wants to use ARM to, at the very least, light a fire under Intel's rear to get them to start working harder.
    Already been done in Server land. ARM servers are starting to pop up.
    08-04-2014 02:03 PM
  5. onlysublime's Avatar
    I agree with you. I guess my point was simply that RT has the power and potential to run all Windows apps, on ARM. Sure, hacks and recompiles are needed, but it is possible for MS to allow it.
    recompiling is not that easy. if it was so easy, the entire Android software ecosystem and iOS ecosystem could be done in Windows Phone and Windows RT instantly. Heck, it should even be easier since they're both ARM. Whole companies have spawned because they have solutions to using shared code. Xamarin was almost bought by Microsoft because their software allows you to use common C# code and then from that, make iOS, Android, and Windows apps.

    You don't realize that the Office team is probably the biggest team at Microsoft and they spent a tremendous amount of energy creating the Windows RT version. I can't wait for their true Metro version of Office (though I'm very happy with the touch capabilities of the current Office 2013 (why they didn't enable Touch by default still makes me shake my head).
    08-04-2014 10:36 PM
  6. Cruncher04's Avatar
    recompiling is not that easy. if it was so easy, the entire Android software ecosystem and iOS ecosystem could be done in Windows Phone and Windows RT instantly.
    Recompiling _IS_ that easy. Note that the OP explicitly mentioned Windows (Win32) apps to be recompiled for RT. He was not talking about iOS or Android Apps, which of course do not use Win32 API and thus cannot be recompiled.
    I also do not understand why you bring Windows Phone into the equation here. Windows Phone is lacking the Win32 subsystem (aka desktop) and many other Windows components - so it is only possible with Windows RT.
    RajeevT and anon(5348756) like this.
    08-05-2014 01:44 PM
  7. RajeevT's Avatar
    The best advice I can give, in regards to Windows RT and the Surface RT, is to buy one knowing what it can and can't do. It won't be able to do all of the things that an x86 tablet can do. You'll have a more limited app selection. The upside, of course, comes from a chance to optimize more and a greater security than that of an x86 device. ARM also does connected standby better than x86 at this point.
    I fully understand the security advantages of a locked down OS such as Windows RT, but how I wish Microsoft would allow pro users to purchase a "business/expert" type license for RT that would disable the OS' certificate checking for executables and allow third party ARM apps to run. There's no dearth of open source software that can be recompiled to run on ARM (as the jailbreak guys have shown), and unlike what someone else in this thread said there are lots of people who'd be willing to recompile apps provided the source is freely available. I know some will say why even bother recompiling - just buy an x86 device and be happy, but ARM devices do offer advantages and it would be wonderful if MS lifted its restrictions as long as we agree to assume all the risks (and rewards) of doing so.
    Cruncher04 likes this.
    08-06-2014 03:47 PM
  8. Michael Alan Goff's Avatar
    I fully understand the security advantages of a locked down OS such as Windows RT, but how I wish Microsoft would allow pro users to purchase a "business/expert" type license for RT that would disable the OS' certificate checking for executables and allow third party ARM apps to run. There's no dearth of open source software that can be recompiled to run on ARM (as the jailbreak guys have shown), and unlike what someone else in this thread said there are lots of people who'd be willing to recompile apps provided the source is freely available. I know some will say why even bother recompiling - just buy an x86 device and be happy, but ARM devices do offer advantages and it would be wonderful if MS lifted its restrictions as long as we agree to assume all the risks (and rewards) of doing so.
    Just recompiling would be a horrible idea.

    Edit: And obviously not simple if VLC is any indication.
    David P2 likes this.
    08-06-2014 04:03 PM
  9. Cruncher04's Avatar
    : And obviously not simple if VLC is any indication.
    Unfortunately it is not an indication of the difficulties of compilation. It is an indication of the stupidity of the (VLC) developers though. They planned to compile using an open source tool-chain (MinGW), which is just not available for ARM. So they had to adapt the tool-chain first but failed. Significant modifications to the toolchain is just not as trivial as writing a video player app. They apparently underestimated the effort and skill required for such an endeavor.
    RajeevT likes this.
    08-06-2014 05:23 PM
  10. RajeevT's Avatar
    Just recompiling would be a horrible idea.
    Because...? If you mean the recompiled apps won't be optimised for ARM then you may be right, but at least they'll work and that's a start, and they can always be improved over time. Just look at the amount of stuff those guys over at xda-devs got working on jailbroken RT 8.0 devices.

    Edit: And obviously not simple if VLC is any indication.
    VLC is a completely different kettle of fish. Instead of starting afresh they tried to reuse most of their code and it contains so much legacy/hacky stuff that simply can't be ported across easily, plus they have problems with C99 support in VS2013 and gcc can't target WOA yet. Again, just look at the relevant xda-devs thread for the complete list of apps already ported by enthusiast developers to jailbroken Windows RT 8.0. A removal of the certificate requirement would certain make things a whole lot easier for people who know what they're doing and are willing to trade the "secure" locked-down approach for better desktop app support.
    08-06-2014 05:28 PM
  11. Michael Alan Goff's Avatar
    Unfortunately it is not an indication of the difficulties of compilation. It is an indication of the stupidity of the (VLC) developers though. They planned to compile using an open source tool-chain (MinGW), which is just not available for ARM. So they had to adapt the tool-chain first but failed. Significant modifications to the toolchain is just not as trivial as writing a video player app. They apparently underestimated the effort and skill required for such an endeavor.
    They also had to get rid of any optimizations that had to to with Win32. They also had to recode it because of the difference between what Win32 and WinRT was able to do.

    Because...? If you mean the recompiled apps won't be optimised for ARM then you may be right, but at least they'll work and that's a start, and they can always be improved over time. Just look at the amount of stuff those guys over at xda-devs got working on jailbroken RT 8.0 devices.


    VLC is a completely different kettle of fish. Instead of starting afresh they tried to reuse most of their code and it contains so much legacy/hacky stuff that simply can't be ported across easily, plus they have problems with C99 support in VS2013 and gcc can't target WOA yet. Again, just look at the relevant xda-devs thread for the complete list of apps already ported by enthusiast developers to jailbroken Windows RT 8.0. A removal of the certificate requirement would certain make things a whole lot easier for people who know what they're doing and are willing to trade the "secure" locked-down approach for better desktop app support.
    A) Because it would be a bad experience, even when optimized. Windows RT is on touch devices. The entire UI and UX are entirely different on a touch app as opposed to a desktop app. So, yes, you can't simply recompile and have a good experience.

    B) The idea of simply recompiling is to re-use as much code as possible.
    08-06-2014 06:30 PM
  12. RajeevT's Avatar
    A) Because it would be a bad experience, even when optimized. Windows RT is on touch devices. The entire UI and UX are entirely different on a touch app as opposed to a desktop app. So, yes, you can't simply recompile and have a good experience.
    Ah, you meant from a UI/UX perspective. Granted there will be as much touch support as the rest of the desktop has (tiny UI elements and all), but when we're talking about apps you're never likely to see 'Metro-fied', I'll take all I can get. Something's always better than a big fat nothing, plus with a mouse the experience is not so bad.

    B) The idea of simply recompiling is to re-use as much code as possible.
    Yeah, but the code has to be in a state that supports recompiling, which apparently VLC wasn't in. Anyway, forget VLC. That's just one in a vast sea of apps that are far better structured and can and will be recompiled if MS would just lift its restriction on Windows RT.
    08-06-2014 09:29 PM
  13. Michael Alan Goff's Avatar
    Ah, you meant from a UI/UX perspective. Granted there will be as much touch support as the rest of the desktop has (tiny UI elements and all), but when we're talking about apps you're never likely to see 'Metro-fied', I'll take all I can get. Something's always better than a big fat nothing, plus with a mouse the experience is not so bad.


    Yeah, but the code has to be in a state that supports recompiling, which apparently VLC wasn't in. Anyway, forget VLC. That's just one in a vast sea of apps that are far better structured and can and will be recompiled if MS would just lift its restriction on Windows RT.
    A) But Microsoft is pushing RT to people who wouldn't know better. It is in their best interest, and not just in a financial sense, to continue to ensure that Windows RT just has Store Apps. They already have enough flak from people who want the product gone, they don't need to throw a substandard experience into the mix.

    B) Actually, well structured apps are like VLC and use the underlying system as much as possible to optimize the experience. It may sound great to have a system that can be pulled up and recompiled at any point, but optimizations are inherently a better idea. It might mean we get "fewer programs" (170k isn't anything to laugh at), but it also means they're better coded. It also means they're likely to have a better UX/UI like I said before. So these restrictions are there for our good, and I hope they stay.
    08-07-2014 09:41 AM
  14. Cruncher04's Avatar
    A) But Microsoft is pushing RT to people who wouldn't know better. It is in their best interest, and not just in a financial sense, to continue to ensure that Windows RT just has Store Apps.
    These are just claims without reasoning. I claim the contrary. A product with more options and features will be more happily taken by potential customers. In addition it will be appreciated by the community, who will be able to port useful tools, which are not possible using WinRT.

    They already have enough flak from people who want the product gone, they don't need to throw a substandard experience into the mix.
    Ironically the flak is coming from people who do have a "substandard experience". The very same people argue, that they like their "substandard experience". So your argument makes no sense.

    It may sound great to have a system that can be pulled up and recompiled at any point, but optimizations are inherently a better idea
    Why do you think that these properties are exclusive?
    08-07-2014 12:44 PM
  15. Michael Alan Goff's Avatar
    These are just claims without reasoning. I claim the contrary. A product with more options and features will be more happily taken by potential customers. In addition it will be appreciated by the community, who will be able to port useful tools, which are not possible using WinRT.



    Ironically the flak is coming from people who do have a "substandard experience". The very same people argue, that they like their "substandard experience". So your argument makes no sense.



    Why do you think that these properties are exclusive?
    A) So that's why more people bought the iPad than the Surface RT, right? Surface RT has options, and yet it sells worse.
    B) No, the flak is coming from the app situation. And at first Windows RT wasn't fully baked.
    C) Because they are.
    WillysJeepMan likes this.
    08-07-2014 01:23 PM
  16. Cruncher04's Avatar
    So that's why more people bought the iPad than the Surface RT, right? Surface RT has options, and yet it sells worse.
    Hmmm. Product A has more options but still sells worse than product B. Therefore the options of product A have to be further reduced in order to make selling it better...very compelling argument...

    Because they are.
    I expected at least some reason here, but apparently there really is no evidence at all supporting your argument.
    08-07-2014 01:43 PM
  17. RajeevT's Avatar
    It is in their best interest, and not just in a financial sense, to continue to ensure that Windows RT just has Store Apps. They already have enough flak from people who want the product gone, they don't need to throw a substandard experience into the mix.
    Which is why I suggested that they can charge for a separate license to remove the restriction. They make money, people who know what the hell they're doing (and are willing to take responsibility for any adverse effects) get access to apps on the platform they never would otherwise, and meanwhile those who don't know better can continue merrily using the OS as they always have. Win-win-win.

    It might mean we get "fewer programs" (170k isn't anything to laugh at), but it also means they're better coded. It also means they're likely to have a better UX/UI like I said before. So these restrictions are there for our good, and I hope they stay.
    See this is the main sticking point. I'm advocating freeing up the platform for pros and enthusiasts (not your average clueless user) to tinker with - people who are willing to assume full responsibility for their actions, with no rights to blame MS if something goes wrong after the restrictions are lifted (say the system becomes infected with ARM malware). If they can provide unlocked devices at a price I'm sure they'll move a few more of those that are just sitting in a warehouse somewhere. You on the other hand seem to prefer an "MS always knows best what's good for us" approach. I'm pretty sure we'll never see Google disabling the ability of end users to side-load non-Store APKs on Android, or else it would be faced with howls of protest. Why can't MS take the same approach and treat its users like adults? "You want to bypass our security and indulge in potentially risky behaviour with your own device, running ugly unoptimised non-touch desktop ARM apps on Windows RT? Fine, go ahead but it's not our headache any more. Don't bother coming to us crying if you mess up on the software side of things."
    DoctorSaline and Cruncher04 like this.
    08-07-2014 01:48 PM
  18. jordanzhninja's Avatar
    Surface 3 with Windows RT?
    Pass.

    Especially when cherry trail gets the same battery life as ARM and the K1 is all hype. "Desktop class GPU". Ha.
    Why Microsoft decided to abandon the millions of desktop programs that developers have worked on for decades I really don't know.
    Windows RT was Microsoft betraying Intel, and now Intel are supporting Android as well.
    08-07-2014 01:51 PM
  19. DoctorSaline's Avatar
    I think people here are confusing MS's approach to "Windows ARM for tablets" with "Full Windows for ARM". Microsoft is tuning Windows ARM for a tablet use which makes sense since tablets are traditionally used for reading emails, surfing web, using social networks, playing casual games, streaming films, shows and music. Add in a productivity touch with the touch version of Office and maybe Adobe's creative suit, you have a competitive product to take on iPads and Galaxy Tabs and Nexus 7s.

    As for geeks, yes, maybe MS should start thinking about licensing full ARM version of Windows.
    08-07-2014 03:00 PM
  20. Michael Alan Goff's Avatar
    Hmmm. Product A has more options but still sells worse than product B. Therefore the options of product A have to be further reduced in order to make selling it better...very compelling argument...



    I expected at least some reason here, but apparently there really is no evidence at all supporting your argument.
    A) Further reduced how? They haven't lowered RT down any more than it started.
    B) The idea of optimizing deals with certain architectures, is that better? If you optimize properly, you're optimizing to a platform. These things can't be moved from platform to platform.

    Which is why I suggested that they can charge for a separate license to remove the restriction. They make money, people who know what the hell they're doing (and are willing to take responsibility for any adverse effects) get access to apps on the platform they never would otherwise, and meanwhile those who don't know better can continue merrily using the OS as they always have. Win-win-win.



    See this is the main sticking point. I'm advocating freeing up the platform for pros and enthusiasts (not your average clueless user) to tinker with - people who are willing to assume full responsibility for their actions, with no rights to blame MS if something goes wrong after the restrictions are lifted (say the system becomes infected with ARM malware). If they can provide unlocked devices at a price I'm sure they'll move a few more of those that are just sitting in a warehouse somewhere. You on the other hand seem to prefer an "MS always knows best what's good for us" approach. I'm pretty sure we'll never see Google disabling the ability of end users to side-load non-Store APKs on Android, or else it would be faced with howls of protest. Why can't MS take the same approach and treat its users like adults? "You want to bypass our security and indulge in potentially risky behaviour with your own device, running ugly unoptimised non-touch desktop ARM apps on Windows RT? Fine, go ahead but it's not our headache any more. Don't bother coming to us crying if you mess up on the software side of things."
    I foresee in the next couple of years Google removing that. There wouldn't be howls of protest aside from a minority, most people don't know anything about sideloading. Yes, I am perfectly happy with the "Microsoft knows best" approach because I know the average user isn't exactly computer literate.
    08-07-2014 03:00 PM
  21. Michael Alan Goff's Avatar
    I think people here are confusing MS's approach to "Windows ARM for tablets" with "Full Windows for ARM". Microsoft is tuning Windows ARM for a tablet use which makes sense since tablets are traditionally used for reading emails, surfing web, using social networks, playing casual games, streaming films, shows and music. Add in a productivity touch with the touch version of Office and maybe Adobe's creative suit, you have a competitive product to take on iPads and Galaxy Tabs and Nexus 7s.

    As for geeks, yes, maybe MS should start thinking about licensing full ARM version of Windows.
    Nobody but Microsoft is using Windows on ARM (maybes phone makers, but whatever).
    08-07-2014 03:01 PM
  22. anthonyng's Avatar
    surface 3 in pro 3 form factor but 10" please :D
    DoctorSaline likes this.
    08-07-2014 04:40 PM
  23. Cruncher04's Avatar
    Further reduced how? They haven't lowered RT down any more than it started.
    No, they have not. I just took your argument and drew the next conclusion following your logic.

    The idea of optimizing deals with certain architectures, is that better? If you optimize properly, you're optimizing to a platform. These things can't be moved from platform to platform.
    Now we are talking. I was always talking about re-compilation within the same platform, namely the Win32 platform, which is available for ARM and x86.
    Just in case you do not mean platform but CPU architecture, please make an example of how you could optimize for Win32 x86 but not for Win32 ARM at the same time aside from using assembly?

    As for geeks, yes, maybe MS should start thinking about licensing full ARM version of Windows.
    I think people here are confusing MS's approach to "Windows ARM for tablets" with "Full Windows for ARM".
    Technically Windows RT is the full Version of Windows for ARM. It is just artificially restricted not by missing platform components or API, but by certificate enforcement.

    Just to make an example:
    When you have a Bluetooth GPS mouse connected to your tablet, the GPS data is not available to WinRT apps, because WinRT Apps are supposed to use the location/sensors API. It is relatively easy to write an user mode driver to forward GPS data from bluetooth to location services, such that all store apps have access to GPS. Windows RT has all kernel mode drivers, platform components and a complete blutooth stack available to write such a driver, because it is just Windows for ARM. I could compile such a driver just fine and it would nicely run on the surface RT. Just the moment I want to start such driver, Windows RT denies to load it due to missing certificates...A completely artificial restriction by Microsoft.
    Now explain that to the user, who is expecting to use his bluetooth GPS accessory with the Surface...not necessarily a power user.
    Last edited by Cruncher04; 08-07-2014 at 05:25 PM.
    08-07-2014 05:00 PM
  24. DoctorSaline's Avatar


    Technically Windows RT is the full Version of Windows for ARM. It is just artificially restricted not by missing platform components or API, but by certificate enforcement.

    Just to make an example:
    When you have a Bluetooth GPS mouse connected to your tablet, the GPS data is not available to WinRT apps, because WinRT Apps are supposed to use the location/sensors API. It is relatively easy to write an user mode driver to forward GPS data from bluetooth to location services, such that all store apps have access to GPS. Windows RT has all kernel mode drivers, platform components and a complete blutooth stack available to write such a driver, because it is just Windows for ARM. I could compile such a driver just fine and it would nicely run on the surface RT. Just the moment I want to start such driver, Windows RT denies to load it due to missing certificates...A completely artificial restriction by Microsoft.
    Now explain that to the user, who is expecting to use his bluetooth GPS accessory with the Surface...not necessarily a power user.
    Well, I'm not technically sound to have this discussion with you so, I'll take your word for it.
    Yes they should remove restrictions which are coming in way of accessories support. And they should definitely widen the support for device and drivers.
    It's just that I don't want to see the desktop UI on a tablet. Neither do I want to see legacy bloatware recompiled to run on Surface 3. Like I and other people said, they should license unrestricted version for PCs and 3rd party hardware vendors to allow developers to do as they please with it.
    08-07-2014 06:29 PM
  25. Michael Alan Goff's Avatar
    No, they have not. I just took your argument and drew the next conclusion following your logic.



    Now we are talking. I was always talking about re-compilation within the same platform, namely the Win32 platform, which is available for ARM and x86.
    Just in case you do not mean platform but CPU architecture, please make an example of how you could optimize for Win32 x86 but not for Win32 ARM at the same time aside from using assembly?




    Technically Windows RT is the full Version of Windows for ARM. It is just artificially restricted not by missing platform components or API, but by certificate enforcement.

    Just to make an example:
    When you have a Bluetooth GPS mouse connected to your tablet, the GPS data is not available to WinRT apps, because WinRT Apps are supposed to use the location/sensors API. It is relatively easy to write an user mode driver to forward GPS data from bluetooth to location services, such that all store apps have access to GPS. Windows RT has all kernel mode drivers, platform components and a complete blutooth stack available to write such a driver, because it is just Windows for ARM. I could compile such a driver just fine and it would nicely run on the surface RT. Just the moment I want to start such driver, Windows RT denies to load it due to missing certificates...A completely artificial restriction by Microsoft.
    Now explain that to the user, who is expecting to use his bluetooth GPS accessory with the Surface...not necessarily a power user.
    A) My argument was actually just saying that adding more features doesn't always mean more sales.
    B) I'll have to get back to you on this one. I know it's possible, but for the life of me I can't think of anything off the top of my head. Most of my experiences have to do with the optimizations with VLC that haven't been able to be ported over at all when it comes to the Windows RT version. Of course, they can't get it to compile at all, but that's a whole separate issue not related to this one.
    08-07-2014 06:41 PM
124 12345

Similar Threads

  1. Bluetooth Head Phones and Surface Pro 3
    By Jugler in forum Microsoft Surface Pro 3
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-16-2014, 06:09 PM
  2. Phone with Surface Pro 1/2/3
    By An Hungarian L520 user in forum Microsoft Surface Pro 3
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-31-2014, 12:05 AM
  3. Desperately need help! I need a Surface 3 Recovery Image.
    By Phoenix Nguyen in forum Microsoft Surface Pro 3
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 07-30-2014, 09:45 AM
  4. surface mini ?
    By maame abena in forum Upcoming and Rumored Tablets
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-28-2014, 05:38 PM
  5. Connecting USB device to Dell XPS 10 Windows 8 RT.
    By LordPiggyOfHam in forum Ask a Question
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-28-2014, 12:53 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD