Surface 3/RT Moving Forward

[Michael Alan Goff]

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.

 

[RajeevT]

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.

 

[Michael Alan Goff]

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.

 

[Cruncher04]

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?

 

[Michael Alan Goff]

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.

 

[Cruncher04]

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.

 

[RajeevT]

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."

 

[jordanzhninja]

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.

 

[DoctorSaline]

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.

 

[Michael Alan Goff]

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.

 

[Michael Alan Goff]

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).

 

[anthonyng]

surface 3 in pro 3 form factor but 10" please

 

[Cruncher04]

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.

 

[DoctorSaline]

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.

 

[Michael Alan Goff]

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.

 

[RajeevT]

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.

Oh I think you're way off base here. Most people don't know about sideloading APKs? Ha. Tell that to all those busy doing so daily, especially with pirated apps downloaded via torrents and dodgy sites. These aren't expert users either BTW and while they may be clueless if you mention "sideloading", I can assure you they know all too well how to install and run a downloaded APK after checking a simple box under system settings. Despite knowing full well that this is the number one route for Android malware Google will not raise a finger to block this feature because it's something that attracts users to its platform by the droves.

Yes, I am perfectly happy with the "Microsoft knows best" approach because I know the average user isn't exactly computer literate.

Exactly, the average user isn't exactly computer literate. Which leads me to question why you seem to be so adamant in dismissing the proposal when it's something no average user will probably ever know about or even consider or be impacted by? MS should give the gate keys to those who (by their own admission) can handle themselves in the big bad world outside, while the rest can be herded and kept safe and secure (and presumably happy) inside the walled garden created specially for them.

Anyway, all this is pure fantasy because MS doesn't want people using "cheaper" (relatively speaking) Windows RT devices to run desktop apps, and perhaps because they even have an understanding with Intel that this competitive advantage will never be ceded to ARM.

 

[rodan01]

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.

Many people don't need legacy desktop programs. A simpler and restricted OS adds many benefits for consumers.

Microsoft won't build a Surface with atom CPU, that space is for OEMs.

Surface RT is here to stay. Probably other cheap Lumia tablets running RT will join the family. Microsoft has to create the market for the tablet OS. OEMs won't jump into RT until they see a decent demand.

The tablet OS has to add features and improvements over Windows in the context of tablets and hybrid devices. The current RT is just Windows on ARM, that could have been an advantage when ARM was much better than Atom, but now the old RT doesn't add much.

We'll have to wait until 2015 to see the new RT.

 

[Michael Alan Goff]

Oh I think you're way off base here. Most people don't know about sideloading APKs? Ha. Tell that to all those busy doing so daily, especially with pirated apps downloaded via torrents and dodgy sites. These aren't expert users either BTW and while they may be clueless if you mention "sideloading", I can assure you they know all too well how to install and run a downloaded APK after checking a simple box under system settings. Despite knowing full well that this is the number one route for Android malware Google will not raise a finger to block this feature because it's something that attracts users to its platform by the droves.



Exactly, the average user isn't exactly computer literate. Which leads me to question why you seem to be so adamant in dismissing the proposal when it's something no average user will probably ever know about or even consider or be impacted by? MS should give the gate keys to those who (by their own admission) can handle themselves in the big bad world outside, while the rest can be herded and kept safe and secure (and presumably happy) inside the walled garden created specially for them.

Anyway, all this is pure fantasy because MS doesn't want people using "cheaper" (relatively speaking) Windows RT devices to run desktop apps, and perhaps because they even have an understanding with Intel that this competitive advantage will never be ceded to ARM.

A) You're vastly overstating the Android piracy problem. Also, you don't have to be an expert to not be in the majority. No, the majority of Android users are not side loading apk. They're also not buying Android phones because they can sidled. They're buying Android phones for a variety of reasons. Some because it's cheap, some because Android is a popular platform, and some because that's what they're advised to buy when they go into their local AT&T or Verizon or Sprint if they don't want an iPhone. Heck, some sales are probably because of the vast number of choices out there.

B) Because 'm trying to protect the user who think he's computer literate and will end up messing up his machine by trying to get something that will, inevitably, screw up his machine. Seriously, there is very little reason for Microsoft to do this like you've basically come out and said.

Seriously, it's not even like doing this would attract more people to the platform. With nice atom tablets, anyone who would want to run desktop apps don't have to spend much to get a tablet that can do just that.

 

[Cruncher04]

With nice atom tablets, anyone who would want to run desktop apps don't have to spend much to get a tablet that can do just that.

Sure if you are just cheap, you can buy one of those Atom tablets. On the other hand if you want to buy an ARM device, you are either artificially limited or need to look elsewhere (e.g. Android). Certainly not the right strategy to attract customers.
And i am not even talking about full blown desktop apps. I talk about doing stuff with your tablet, which is not possible with the certificate enforcement, like using a GPS mouse over USB or bluetooth or running a Java engine. It is very sad to see, that everything is there in Windows RT right at your fingertips, but not usable. Heck, i can do things with a Blackberry, which is not possible with Windows RT with these restrictions like developing a dynamic code translation engine.

 

[RajeevT]

A) You're vastly overstating the Android piracy problem. Also, you don't have to be an expert to not be in the majority. No, the majority of Android users are not side loading apk. They're also not buying Android phones because they can sidled.

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.

B) Because 'm trying to protect the user who think he's computer literate and will end up messing up his machine by trying to get something that will, inevitably, screw up his machine.

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.

It is very sad to see, that everything is there in Windows RT right at your fingertips, but not usable.

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?