Surface 3/RT Moving Forward

[Michael Alan Goff]

No, I don't think I am overstating it in the least, but I guess your point of view depends on what you see happening around you. Anyway, we'll just see if Google does remove that option like you predict. I believe they have so much to gain by not doing so that they never will.


So how exactly are you going to protect every n00b who wants to screw up, from himself? None of what I suggested will affect average users in any way unless they go out of their way to enable this (such as pay for the license etc.). Those who know what's what will be willing to jump through some hoops if it means getting what they want out of the device they own, whereas the rest will never even bother. And if they do it and mess up, well like I already said that will no longer be MS' responsibility. I don't understand this attitude of treating every single user as a helpless nincompoop who needs to be carefully shielded from the vicissitudes of life and for whom taking responsibility for his own actions is an unfathomable concept. Those who are content with the artificial limitations placed on them (and I'm not saying they're wrong to choose that path) can continue doing as they please and will not be affected in any way, and others who want to do something extra can be satisfied as well. And those who knowingly choose not to heed the warnings and go down the wrong path will have to face the consequences of their idiotic actions. What exactly is wrong with that I wonder?

I know well that there's very little reason for Microsoft to do this, but not due to the excuses you are giving but purely out of financial motives or other vested interests. Otherwise if "protecting" people was their one and only altruistic motive you can kiss normal Windows goodbye, precisely because it is not locked down like Windows RT, is prone to malware and gasp, is vulnerable to those very same users who think they're computer literate and then screw up their machine. So let's just have Windows RT and nothing else and everyone will be protected and safe and warm and fuzzy (till the hackers break through). Would you like that - it is the best way to accomplish your stated goal after all.


You nailed it. This is precisely what makes the current state of affairs so irritating and frustrating. Why not create a chopped down version of the OS in the first place? Why have all that power and potential and then go and emasculate it for everyone, instead of leaving it as a choice for the user to make?

A) You may be right about Google, but we shall see.
B) It may not be their responsibility, but it certainly will be their problem.

 

[RajeevT]

B) It may not be their responsibility, but it certainly will be their problem.

How will it be MS' problem?

 

[WillysJeepMan]

You nailed it. This is precisely what makes the current state of affairs so irritating and frustrating. Why not create a chopped down version of the OS in the first place? Why have all that power and potential and then go and emasculate it for everyone, instead of leaving it as a choice for the user to make?

I was hoping that Windows RT was going to be a version of Windows that had been judiciously pared down to remove enterprise functionality that would be unnecessary in a consumer device. Reduced complexity, increased stability. I didn't want yet another Windows device that would need to be tweaked and nursed.

But instead it had the same complexity as an unfettered x86 Windows but with a more restricted user experience. After my 9+ month experiences with a Surface RT and Surface 2, I was saddened to see that is not where Microsoft was taking it.

 

[RajeevT]

But instead it had the same complexity as an unfettered x86 Windows but with a more restricted user experience.

Even though I for one prefer the power and potential that the complexity allows for, I get your point. Windows RT as it stands exists in a strange confused form - neither as dumbed down/simplified/stable as iOS nor allowing users the ability to tap into all its power. The best they could come up with was to recompile Windows for ARM and then just restrict desktop apps to lock down the OS and force people to use the Store and Metro apps? Either craft a custom superior mobile experience or just go the whole hog and provide unfettered access. This schizophrenic approach just smacks of them being lazy. People say the only reason Windows RT has the desktop is because of the lack of Metro Office. To that I say, if they're going to cordon off the desktop completely when Metro Office is available then why even bother having all that 'legacy' stuff hanging around? Just chop it off and lighten the load. But until they do that many of us are naturally going to decry the sheer wasted potential of the OS.

 

[Michael Alan Goff]

How will it be MS' problem?

Is that serious? When people wouldn't figure out the charms, it was Microsoft's problem. When people couldn't figure out how to turn off their computer, it was Microsoft's problem. When people end up getting malware because they go on shady websites, somehow people make it Microsoft's problem. And if they did this, and it ruined the experience, it would become their problem as well. Because the users are never at fault, it's always Microsoft somehow.

 

[Michael Alan Goff]

I was hoping that Windows RT was going to be a version of Windows that had been judiciously pared down to remove enterprise functionality that would be unnecessary in a consumer device. Reduced complexity, increased stability. I didn't want yet another Windows device that would need to be tweaked and nursed.

But instead it had the same complexity as an unfettered x86 Windows but with a more restricted user experience. After my 9+ month experiences with a Surface RT and Surface 2, I was saddened to see that is not where Microsoft was taking it.

And now we have threshold, where they might finally do what you're talking about. It seems like they might, anyway.

 

[RajeevT]

Is that serious? When people wouldn't figure out the charms, it was Microsoft's problem. When people couldn't figure out how to turn off their computer, it was Microsoft's problem. When people end up getting malware because they go on shady websites, somehow people make it Microsoft's problem. And if they did this, and it ruined the experience, it would become their problem as well. Because the users are never at fault, it's always Microsoft somehow.

If it's Microsoft's problem that people with brains the size of peas blame the company when they themselves tinker with things they know nothing about and screw up their systems, then I must say that have managed quite well despite this in all these years of selling non locked-down OSes. I'll point out again my point about people needing to take responsibility for their own actions. Speaking of which, obviously the numbers might be lower but I'm sure a vocal minority of OS X users also blame Apple when they screw up their machines, as also Google users, and so on. Do these companies react by ignoring everyone else and prostrating themselves before such users? If not then why should MS? Why give so much importance to idiots who blame a company for their own mistakes? And since when is it MS' responsibility to cater to this bunch to the exclusion of all the other sane people out there? Your reasoning again sounds quite hollow to me. If we were to take it to its logical conclusion, then MS should stop selling normal Windows and stick only to locked down versions so that no-one can blame them for their own screw-ups. This sort of backwards thinking where MS would not do something, solely because there exists the potential for users to screw up and blame them, makes no sense to me at all.

 

[Cruncher04]

And now we have threshold, where they might finally do what you're talking about. It seems like they might, anyway.

There is currently no indication, that they will do this with threshold. However if they remove the Win32 Subsystem for ARM devices, it will be almost as dumbed down as Windows Phone. Microsoft should have learned by now, that this is not the right approach to attract customers. They are still fighting with removing the restrictions they put into the original version of Windows Phone and it will most likely take them another few generations until Windows Phone gets into an acceptable state.
Besides Microsoft mentioned on occasion, that there will not be a third OS between Windows and Windows Phone. So the tablet OS will be either Windows or Windows Phone. The second option of course would be nothing but a joke compared to what Windows (RT) is today. I would be surprised if Microsoft can sell such an abomination as "upgrade" to Windows RT users. This holds in particular, since the OEMs will still consider Windows as the tablet OS of choice.

 

[Michael Alan Goff]

If it's Microsoft's problem that people with brains the size of peas blame the company when they themselves tinker with things they know nothing about and screw up their systems, then I must say that have managed quite well despite this in all these years of selling non locked-down OSes. I'll point out again my point about people needing to take responsibility for their own actions. Speaking of which, obviously the numbers might be lower but I'm sure a vocal minority of OS X users also blame Apple when they screw up their machines, as also Google users, and so on. Do these companies react by ignoring everyone else and prostrating themselves before such users? If not then why should MS? Why give so much importance to idiots who blame a company for their own mistakes? And since when is it MS' responsibility to cater to this bunch to the exclusion of all the other sane people out there? Your reasoning again sounds quite hollow to me. If we were to take it to its logical conclusion, then MS should stop selling normal Windows and stick only to locked down versions so that no-one can blame them for their own screw-ups. This sort of backwards thinking where MS would not do something, solely because there exists the potential for users to screw up and blame them, makes no sense to me at all.

Microsoft isn't ignoring all of the users and prostrating themselves. They're giving two separate Operating Systems with two separate audiences. If you want the no-muss-no-fuss version of Windows that is tied down where you don't have to worry about anything? They have something for you. If you want the full-Windows experience? They have something for you, too. Seriously, you act like there's no recourse except to blindly use Windows RT for something it obviously wasn't designed for.

Do you blame a hammer because it sucks as a screw driver?

Microsoft has a version for people who want the full Windows experience and one for those who want a simple one. You chose the wrong one, it seems, since you want them to break their design. I don't see how that's their fault, or my fault, or anyone's fault other than your own.

 

[Michael Alan Goff]

There is currently no indication, that they will do this with threshold. However if they remove the Win32 Subsystem for ARM devices, it will be almost as dumbed down as Windows Phone. Microsoft should have learned by now, that this is not the right approach to attract customers. They are still fighting with removing the restrictions they put into the original version of Windows Phone and it will most likely take them another few generations until Windows Phone gets into an acceptable state.
Besides Microsoft mentioned on occasion, that there will not be a third OS between Windows and Windows Phone. So the tablet OS will be either Windows or Windows Phone. The second option of course would be nothing but a joke compared to what Windows (RT) is today. I would be surprised if Microsoft can sell such an abomination as "upgrade" to Windows RT users. This holds in particular, since the OEMs will still consider Windows as the tablet OS of choice.

We know that there will be a SKU of threshold that lacks the desktop. All indication points to this being the one for phones and ARM tablets. It really wouldn't remove a lot from Windows RT at that point. They've done a good job at moving 90% of things from desktop to the Modern UI. Threshold should provide the rest, removing the need for a desktop at all.

 

[Cruncher04]

We know that there will be a SKU of threshold that lacks the desktop. All indication points to this being the one for phones and ARM tablets

Quote please. I can not remember Microsoft mentioning anything like that (e.g a Windows SKU without desktop).
Of course all Windows Phone SKUs will not have a desktop. But I doubt Microsoft would be so crazy to deploy Windows Phone on tablets, not until you want to kill your user base. Besides I do not see a point of having 2 different OS targeted for tablets. I am very certain that Microsofts tablet strategy only involves Windows and not Windows Phone.

It really wouldn't remove a lot from Windows RT at that point.They've done a good job at moving 90% of things from desktop to the Modern UI.

They did not move much at all. Can you develop a browser with WinRT? No. Can you develop a driver with WinRT? No. Can you develop a VPN client with WinRT. No. Do you have full file system access with WinRT. No. Can you manage system services from WinRT? No. Do you have raw socket access with WinRT? No. Do you have virtual memory management access with WinRT? No. Can you develop any dynamic code translator necessary for Java, Java Script, Silverlight and numerous emulators with WinRT? No. Can you develop arbitrary background services with WinRT? No. Do you have scripting services like Powershell under WinRT? No. Can you share your local resources like files over the network with WinRT? No.

And now the key question:
Does the WinRT sandbox have enough privileges to theoretically do anything of the above? No.

Note that many things mentioned above are possible today with Windows RT, but not if you remove the Win32 subsystem aka desktop or even worse, use Windows Phone for tablets.

Microsoft tried spoon feeding its user with Windows Phone and failed miserably. It took them almost 4 years to have rudimentary file system support back in Windows Phone. They need to remember what made products like Windows successful and it certainly was not patronizing its users.

 

[RajeevT]

If you want the full-Windows experience? They have something for you, too. Seriously, you act like there's no recourse except to blindly use Windows RT for something it obviously wasn't designed for.

And that's where you are wrong. Windows RT was designed for providing the "full Windows experience" (as you put it) including running desktop apps, and it's just MS' artificial restriction that prevents it from doing so. Your point would hold water only if they had actually taken the time to develop something tailor-made for mobile devices, instead of simply recompiling for ARM and then locking down part of the OS. As they've no doubt already realised, this sort of half-baked approach satisfied (in sufficient numbers) neither those who preferred a simplified stable secure walled garden system nor those who chafed at being denied full use of the OS or their device.

Do you blame a hammer because it sucks as a screw driver?

Microsoft has a version for people who want the full Windows experience and one for those who want a simple one. You chose the wrong one, it seems, since you want them to break their design. I don't see how that's their fault, or my fault, or anyone's fault other than your own.

No, but I would definitely criticise a tool that the manufacturer restricts from achieving its full potential as a hammer and is moreover shoe-horned into the unfamiliar role of a screwdriver, a job it naturally is not very good at. As far as breaking some grand "design" of MS goes, how ironic you'd say that. Windows RT is actually designed to run desktop apps. That's the plain truth of the matter, no two ways about it. It's hardly anyone's fault if they want the OS to actually do all of what it was designed to do. Those who don't want that freedom are free to use the OS as-is. Neither group need be affected by what the other chooses to do.

As I said in my reply to WillysJeepMan above, if MS' aim was to restrict users solely to the Metro UI then they should have been less lazy about it and released Windows RT with no 'legacy' desktop bloat whatsoever. There was no call for the OS to have almost all the power (and importantly size on disk) of full Windows and then have its abilities restricted so severely, whether or not some people like you feel that those advanced abilities don't make sense on a mobile device. Now that would have been evidence on their part of some proper thought and effort having gone into a design for a truly mobile OS. It remains to be seen whether that Threshold SKU you mention will ever come about and what sort of features and compromises it will have. It will of course not satisfy those who want the full Windows experience on ARM, but hopefully it will be far better suited to its job of being a lean mean mobile OS than the schizophrenic Windows RT ever was.

 

[Michael Alan Goff]

Quote please. I can not remember Microsoft mentioning anything like that (e.g a Windows SKU without desktop).
Of course all Windows Phone SKUs will not have a desktop. But I doubt Microsoft would be so crazy to deploy Windows Phone on tablets, not until you want to kill your user base. Besides I do not see a point of having 2 different OS targeted for tablets. I am very certain that Microsofts tablet strategy only involves Windows and not Windows Phone.



They did not move much at all. Can you develop a browser with WinRT? No. Can you develop a driver with WinRT? No. Can you develop a VPN client with WinRT. No. Do you have full file system access with WinRT. No. Can you manage system services from WinRT? No. Do you have raw socket access with WinRT? No. Do you have virtual memory management access with WinRT? No. Can you develop any dynamic code translator necessary for Java, Java Script, Silverlight and numerous emulators with WinRT? No. Can you develop arbitrary background services with WinRT? No. Do you have scripting services like Powershell under WinRT? No. Can you share your local resources like files over the network with WinRT? No.

And now the key question:
Does the WinRT sandbox have enough privileges to theoretically do anything of the above? No.

Note that many things mentioned above are possible today with Windows RT, but not if you remove the Win32 subsystem aka desktop or even worse, use Windows Phone for tablets.

Microsoft tried spoon feeding its user with Windows Phone and failed miserably. It took them almost 4 years to have rudimentary file system support back in Windows Phone. They need to remember what made products like Windows successful and it certainly was not patronizing its users.

I was talking about things that were in Windows RT being moved to the modern UI.

Also, my source is MJF, who has a good track record with these things.

And that's where you are wrong. Windows RT was designed for providing the "full Windows experience" (as you put it) including running desktop apps, and it's just MS' artificial restriction that prevents it from doing so. Your point would hold water only if they had actually taken the time to develop something tailor-made for mobile devices, instead of simply recompiling for ARM and then locking down part of the OS. As they've no doubt already realised, this sort of half-baked approach satisfied (in sufficient numbers) neither those who preferred a simplified, stable, walled garden system nor those who chafed at being denied full use of the OS or their device.


No, but I would definitely criticise a hammer that the manufacturer restricts from achieving its full potential and is moreover shoe-horned into the unfamiliar role of a screwdriver, a job it naturally is not very good at. As far as breaking some grand "design" of MS goes, how ironic you'd say that. Windows RT is actually designed to run desktop apps. That's the plain truth of the matter, no two ways about it. It's hardly anyone's fault if they want the OS to actually do all of what it was designed to do. Those who don't want that freedom are free to use the OS as-is. Neither group need be affected by what the other chooses to do.

As I said in my reply to WillysJeepMan above, if MS' aim was to restrict users solely to the Metro UI then they should have been less lazy about it and released Windows RT with no 'legacy' desktop bloat whatsoever. There was no call for the OS to have almost all the power (and importantly size on disk) of full Windows and then have its abilities restricted so severely, whether or not some people like you feel that those advanced abilities don't make sense on a mobile device. Now that would have been evidence on their part of some proper thought having gone into a design for a truly mobile OS. It remains to be seen whether that Threshold SKU you mention will ever come about and what sort of features and compromises it will have. It will of course not satisfy those who want the full Windows experience on ARM, but hopefully it will be far better suited to its job of being a lean mean mobile OS than the schizophrenic Windows RT ever was.

A) Just because it's capable at this point doesn't mean it was their design plan. If Office had been touch, there likely wouldn't have been a desktop on Windows RT. It was there out of necessity, not out of design. Seriously, this is not the "full Windows" experience on ARM. It's a Windows experience on ARM, the new one.

Should they have released it without desktop? They couldn't have if they wanted Office on there. It wasn't out of them being "lazy", it was out of them needing to completely rewrite Office to work in their new Modern UI.

 

[RajeevT]

Just because it's capable at this point doesn't mean it was their design plan.

Doesn't matter why it is capable, just that it is, and then that capability has been heavily restricted. If it never was capable no-one would be complaining.

If Office had been touch, there likely wouldn't have been a desktop on Windows RT. It was there out of necessity, not out of design. Seriously, this is not the "full Windows" experience on ARM. It's a Windows experience on ARM, the new one.

Should they have released it without desktop? They couldn't have if they wanted Office on there. It wasn't out of them being "lazy", it was out of them needing to completely rewrite Office to work in their new Modern UI.

Nope, I've heard this before (lack of Metro Office being blamed), am not buying it. There was no call to have made the desktop available at all. Even if Office was a desktop app they could have made it accessible only from the Start Screen and removed the desktop altogether. But obviously that wasn't the only thing holding them back. Just how would people have performed file management without an official Metro Windows Explorer? Wait for third party developers to release something so basic that should have been part of the OS? Yeah, like I said, lazy. There are also many parts of the OS, not least entire sections of the Control Panel, that have no counterparts in Metro (and the situation was much worse in RT 8.0). Nope, they had no clear idea how to build an OS for tablets and probably to buy time just released a locked down version of Windows for ARM, which was/is neither here nor there.

As for that delay in releasing Office, what's up with that? The far smaller Mac team managed Office for iOS far quicker than the Windows Office team? Really? More like Metro Office was not a priority because iOS was a more lucrative target due to the sheers number of devices sold, so someone in management just took the call to slap on Office recompiled for ARM on Windows recompiled for ARM and call it a day.

 

[Michael Alan Goff]

Nope, I've heard this before (lack of Metro Office being blamed), am not buying it. There was no call to have made the desktop available at all. Even if Office was a desktop app they could have made it accessible only from the Start Screen and removed the desktop altogether. But obviously that wasn't the only thing holding them back. Just how would people have performed file management without an official Metro Windows Explorer? Wait for third party developers to release something so basic that should have been part of the OS? Yeah, like I said, lazy. There are also many parts of the OS, not least entire sections of the Control Panel, that have no counterparts in Metro (and the situation was much worse in RT 8.0). Nope, they had no clear idea how to build an OS for tablets and probably to buy time just released a locked down version of Windows for ARM, which was/is neither here nor there.

As for that delay in releasing Office, what's up with that? The far smaller Mac team managed Office for iOS far quicker than the Windows Office team? Really? More like Metro Office was not a priority because iOS was a more lucrative target due to the sheers number of devices sold, so someone in management just took the call to slap on Office recompiled for ARM on Windows recompiled for ARM and call it a day.

I can easily answer the second part. They built the iOS version almost from scratch. They didn't have to worry about porting code over. They're going to be porting code over for Modern Office, so it takes longer. It's part of the reason why VLC is taking forever to get onto the Modern UI and newer Modern UI video players were there quickly.

 

[RajeevT]

I can easily answer the second part. They built the iOS version almost from scratch. They didn't have to worry about porting code over. They're going to be porting code over for Modern Office, so it takes longer. It's part of the reason why VLC is taking forever to get onto the Modern UI and newer Modern UI video players were there quickly.

So what prevented them from starting afresh for Metro Office as well, especially when according to you the design of WOA itself depended on it? And as I said, the delay in delivering Office no way sufficiently explains the core design of their OS for mobile/ARM devices and the unfinished state of Metro when it was first released (not that the job's done yet). At least if they admit their sleeping over putting forth an iOS/iPad competitor made them run short of time and so they took obvious shortcuts, I'll admire them for that rather than them blaming everything on the Office team and using the latter as scapegoats.

BTW, since we're discussing the capabilities of Windows RT I'd also like to address another bone-headed decision of Microsoft - the name chosen for the OS (and I'm not even talking of the WinRT/Windows RT fiasco). Just how many people returned their devices because they expected a Windows tablet to be fully capable of running their favourite Windows apps (including alternate browsers and the like), and then were bitterly disappointed when they found out this wasn't possible? Your average user doesn't know (or even need to know) about CPU architectures and what not. If MS had delivered an OS that was truly tailor-made for tablets and named/marketed to clearly distinguish it from Windows, it wouldn't have confused users who're already conditioned to accept the fact that desktop OS (i.e. OS X) apps don't run on a tablet OS (i.e. iOS).

 

[Michael Alan Goff]

So what prevented them from starting afresh for Metro Office as well, especially when according to you the design of WOA itself depended on it? And as I said, the delay in delivering Office no way sufficiently explains the core design of their OS for mobile/ARM devices and the unfinished state of Metro when it was first released (not that the job's done yet). At least if they admit their sleeping over putting forth an iOS/iPad competitor made them run short of time and so they took obvious shortcuts, I'll admire them for that rather than them blaming everything on the Office team and using the latter as scapegoats.

BTW, since we're discussing the capabilities of Windows RT I'd also like to address another bone-headed decision of Microsoft - the name chosen for the OS (and I'm not even talking of the WinRT/Windows RT fiasco). Just how many people returned their devices because they expected a Windows tablet to be fully capable of running their favourite Windows apps (including alternate browsers and the like), and then were bitterly disappointed when they found out this wasn't possible? Your average user doesn't know (or even need to know) about CPU architectures and what not. If MS had delivered an OS that was truly tailor-made for tablets and named/marketed to clearly distinguish it from Windows, it wouldn't have confused users who're already conditioned to accept the fact that desktop OS (i.e. OS X) apps don't run on a tablet OS (i.e. iOS).

A) Nothing prevented them from starting afresh. They likely felt it was a better idea, given the fact that means the Windows version is likely going to have more features than the iOS version. Instead of having to figure out how to remake them, they just have to figure out how to port them over. In the end, we'll see if it was a good idea or not. I, personally, would have rather they built a new one and then updated it to the converged one later on.

I don't run Microsoft, though.

​B) Yes, the name was a horrible decision.

 

[DoctorSaline]

Interesting discussion. Thanks guys. Learned a lot. Also, it prompted me to search internet regarding windows 8, windows rt, winRT, win32, surface 2 reviews, surface pro 3 reviews.
The problem is windows is suffering from identity crisis. On app level I mean. And all of this because of Microsoft's push for hybrids. Two internet explorers. Two onenotes. Two offices. Two set of settings. And I'm not even bringing WP or that would make three sets of everything. Microsoft needs ONE APP each with a design that works on both tablet form factor as well as desktop/laptop form factor. That's where winRT comes in. Apps developed through winRT will not only be optimized with these two form factors but also for x86/64 and ARM. What it will do is that it will make ONE APP that will be good for both UIs(modern and desktop) and also work with both x86/64(Intel) and ARM. It will also improve continuity and provide uniform experience to the users. What's more is that with windows and windows phone 8.1, winRT and WPRT merged together thus making apps universal. (Meaning you can buy them once and they will be able to run on your WP, your x86/64 based hybrid/tablet/desktop, your ARM based tablet/hybrid/desktop and XBox.)
I think the problem with Office delay is that they are compiling it through winRT so that it gives a uniform experience on all Microsoft form factors(tablet and desktop) and processors(x86/64 and ARM) while also removing continuity bugs when switching from modernUI to desktopUI in hybrids. Same has to be done with OneNote, IE, Explorer, Management apps, Control panels and device managers.
About Microsoft killing win32, I don't think that will be possible for them since compiling universal apps such as productivity apps like Office may need privileges provided by these APIs. Also, ARM is important to them since they know that some day the full PC experience might transfer to ARM since it has less power consumption, longer battery life and cheaper. Also, if they were planning to remove desktop and win32 they might have done it already but if they haven't, maybe, they are thinking of merging the already merged winRT and WPRT with win32 selectively.
I think releasing full, unrestricted version of ARM was their initial plan during which they got cold feet and might have decided that since it is a growing platform, might as well restrict and control it to save it from bloatware and malware that has plagued desktop for ages.

Also, I have a question. If developers want to recompile desktop apps, why aren't they doing it through winRT and WPRT APIs and then publishing through one windows store? I think that's what Microsoft expects of developers and it will also help grow platform ecosystem.

 

[RajeevT]

Also, I have a question. If developers want to recompile desktop apps, why aren't they doing it through winRT and WPRT APIs and then publishing through one windows store? I think that's what Microsoft expects of developers and it will also help grow platform ecosystem.

If only it were that simple, for then we'd have seen many more apps by now. No, the reason many desktop apps simply can't be converted into Metro apps is due to WinRT being new/immature and lacking the features that the decades old mature Win32 API has (plus some features may deliberately be omitted due to the former's locked down nature). That's not to say WinRT can't improve (and also get bloated) over time, but it's just not there yet.

There's also the problem of re-tooling the UI, which for a desktop app can often be quite complex and would need a radically different approach to be mobile/touch friendly. As you can see from iOS Office, it is nowhere near the complexity of Office for Mac. Expect Metro Office to similarly be a cut-down version of Office for Windows. Only point of interest is to see what features they'll decide to retain, whether the UI will be very different from that of iOS Office and so on, and finally whether it is really worth all the time they took to release it.

 

[DoctorSaline]

But there are rumors that they are planning to run modern apps in window mode in desktop.
But if there are again two versions present, one full office 2013 and another office for windows(touch) then the issue of identity crisis will be same as ever not to mention continuity issues. Isn't the point of threshold to make ONE APP rule all form form factors(UI) and processors(x86/64 and arm)?