Did Microsoft just kill RT?

[WillysJeepMan]

I have no idea, but it would make sense for a small and light device like the Mini to run a small and light OS like WP. RT is almost just as heavy as Windows and doesn't really make sense on devices intended to compete with iOS and Android tabletts. You could be right.

I agree, and I've said that before. But it DOES make sense on devices intended to compete with iOS and Android. The Surface RT/2 is capable of doing many things that neither Android nor iOS can do (or do as well, or as easily). The greatest impediment is the app situation. If MS delivers on the promise of unified/universal apps, then that issue will be quickly addressed.

It would be a mistake, IMO, for Microsoft to retreat from Windows RT.

 

[a5cent]

It's very true. WP universal runtime is RT (well, it's not totally finished and there are additional phone only functions but it is around 90% the same). Windows for ARM is RT + Desktop. When the desktop component is no longer needed you have a single OS.

No. Stephen is right. I also disagree with your definition of WOA, but I won't get into that here.

This thread is a complete mess, because everyone and their grandmother has their own understanding of what Windows RT actually is.

• I think many envision Windows RT as an entirely separate OS. It isn't! Windows Home Edition and Windows Professional would then also have to be two entirely separate OS'. They aren't either.
• I think many are using Windows RT as a means to refer to the Start Screen and Windows Store apps. That isn't correct either!

Well what is Windows RT then?

Windows RT is little more than a run-of-the-mill Windows installation, configured in a way so as to disallow the installation and execution of Win32 software (desktop software), with the exception of a specially prepared version of Office for RT. Any other software you'd want to run must do so within the WinRT runtime environment, meaning it must be a Windows Store app. That last part is the only thing differentiating Windows RT from Windows. It's just an added restriction. Apart from that extra restriction, Windows and Windows RT are essentially the same thing (or at least very very similar). Windows RT is possibly best thought of as an extra edition of Windows... Windows Home Edition, Windows Professional, Windows Enterprise, and Windows RT. Windows RT and all the other editions of Windows are also all compiled from the exact same code base.

WP however is completely different. Stephen said "WP wasn't merged into the [Windows] RT space". That is true. If anything, bits and pieces of WinRT are slowly being merged into WP, not the other way around.

I think the following are just further examples of how differing definitions of what Windows RT is complicates meaningful dialog:

It DOES make sense on devices intended to compete with iOS and Android. The Surface RT/2 is capable of doing many things that neither Android nor iOS can do (or do as well, or as easily). <snipped> It would be a mistake, IMO, for Microsoft to retreat from Windows RT.

All the functionality that makes Windows RT more capable than Android and iOS on tablets is provided by the WinRT API, the WinRT runtime, and the software layers below them. WP already shares the kernel and the driver model with Windows. If WP also gains the entire WinRT API and runtime, then WP will have the exact same capabilities that Windows RT has today. It just won't be Windows RT.

My point is that Windows RT can die, without MS' tablets efforts loosing anything. What may not die are the WinRT API and runtime environments.

My feeling is that RT won't be killed off but will end up being merged completely with Windows Phone.

As previously stated, if you merge Windows RT into WP, than that is killing off Windows RT! There is no point keeping Windows RT and WP around if they both do the same things. At that point, Windows RT will die.

That doesn't mean that Windows Store apps will die!
That doesn't mean the Start Screen will die!
That doesn't mean Microsoft will cease to make consumption oriented tablets!

It does mean that tablets will ship with WP instead of Windows RT, although they will look and function similarly to how Windows RT tablets function today. Why? Because WP will include the WinRT API and runtime environment. WP will also weigh in below 1GB in size, whereas Windows RT can gobble up to 13GB in size. That alone already prevents Windows RT tablets from ever being price competitive with current Android and iOS tablets.

Again... Windows RT is dead! Long live the WinRT API and runtime!

 

[Infamy79]

Except that is killing Windows RT!

If WP and RT converge, that is the end of RT as a separate OS SKU. WP would replace it entirely.

I think some may be confusing the OS SKU (Windows RT) with the ModernUI environment (provided by the WinRT API and runtime).

The OP asked if Microsoft killed RT (the OS SKU). That is not the same thing as asking if Microsoft killed WinRT (the API and runtime environment for store apps).

If WP and RT converge, then the WinRT API would live on in Windows and in WP, but the RT OS as a separate SKU will disappear. I fully expect that to happen.

By that same logic Windows Phone also dies to make way for the new product as neither will exist under the converged OS. If it is the OS they will also use on tablets under 9" then they can't continue calling it Windows Phone.
If anything I see it the other way to what you said. As they bring more functionality to the smaller devices, it is likely that they will be adding the phone stack and apps like Cortana to WinRT and allowing WinRT to run Windows Phone Store apps. The end result will be a phone OS a lot closer to WinRT to what WP8.1 currently is.
They just need to make sure that it runs well on lower end hardware like the Snapdragon 200/400

 

[a5cent]

By that same logic Windows Phone also dies to make way for the new product as neither will exist under the converged OS. If it is the OS they will also use on tablets under 9" then they can't continue calling it Windows Phone.

You have to keep in mind that I'm arguing from a technical point of view. I couldn't care less what MS christens it, or under what name they market it to the masses. I care about what it actually is. Maybe they won't call it Windows Phone. Maybe they will even call it Windows RT. I don't care. That isn't the point I'm trying to make. I'm explaining what it actually will be, and no matter what they call it, it will be WP + WinRT API and runtime.

It is likely that they will be adding the phone stack and apps like Cortana to WinRT and allowing WinRT to run Windows Phone Store apps. The end result will be a phone OS a lot closer to WinRT to what WP8.1 currently is.

Never happening. There are many reasons, but just the fact that Windows RT is over ten times fatter than WP is reason enough. Even low end devices would have to ship with 3GB of memory and 32GB of storage for that to work. It would be suicide for WP at the low end of the market.

 

[Infamy79]

You have to keep in mind that I'm arguing from a technical point of view. I couldn't care less what MS christens it, or under what name they market it to the masses. I care about what it actually is. They really might not call it Windows Phone. Maybe they will even call it Windows RT. I don't care. That isn't the point I'm trying to make. I'm explaining what it actually is, and no matter what they call it, it will be WP + WinRT.

I do understand that, but I am hoping that in bringing WinRT functionality to current versions of WP they are simply paving the way for an easy migration to what I assume is Windows Phone 9 (or whatever it is called). If they are wanting true convergence of the Windows OS across all platforms, then it will make a lot more sense for this to be WinRT pushed down to phones, than WP scaled up for bigger screen use.

 

[a5cent]

If they are wanting true convergence of the Windows OS across all platforms, then it will make a lot more sense for this to be WinRT pushed down to phones, than WP scaled up for bigger screen use.

You were too fast for me here ;-) See above.

Well, answer me these two questions then:

• What does "true convergence" mean?
• Why does it make a lot more sense for WinRT (do you mean Windows RT or WinRT... entirely different things) to be pushed down to phones rather than scaling up WP.

Some extra information on that last point:

It is always far easier to scale an OS up than to scale an OS down. That might not make sense to people who don't develop software, but you'll have to believe me. MS has already admitted that this is what they are doing. We can already see this happening for WP8.1, in which they incorporated a large part of WinRT's UI stack. This occurred not in preparation for a transition to Windows RT on smartphones, but in preparation to replace it. If they were planning on replacing WP with Windows RT, then they would instead be adding WP's API's to Windows RT so it could run WP apps. That is not what they are doing.

 

[smoledman]

MS had to call it Windows RT because of Ballmer - Windows was his baby from day 1(1980s) and he would never allow an MS operating system to be called anything else. Now that he's gone, there's some hope.

Windows 8.1 Desktop - equivalent to OS X
mOS - mobile OS(for tablet & phone) like iOS

 

[WillysJeepMan]

I'd be pleased if it were called Zune OS.

 

[Squachy]

We all know what Windows x86 is.
we all know what Windows Phone is.
RT is the middle, the red headed stepchild. In its current incarnation, its just windows x86 that runs on ARM.

I think they went this way cuz windows phone had been on its own development timeline (aka ungodly slow) and it probably was faster to port x86 to ARM and have all of windows x86 working for the most part on it, instead of having to wait for WP to add support for different ARM processors, different screen sizes, different screen resolutions, etc.

Plus as x86 windows gets further developed, the ARM based RT gets developed in parallel so they can make the same changes together.
Once they get the WP development to be on the same pace as the winx86 and RT then they can figure out what to call the RT/WP hybrid. I think right now they're just laying the groundwork (API's, and such) to get them to be the same since RT and WP both need features to be added to each other that each one doesn't have before they would be considered one and the same.

RT isn't getting killed, but RT and WP will become one in the same and the RT name or even the WP name will probably be dropped in favor of something to signify the union. I would guess when its all said and done, they'll be able to drop both the RT and WP names and just use the singular 'windows' and have one single OS that runs on x86 and ARM and any form factor.

Right now they have 3 separate OS's (x86, RT, WP) when all they need is 2 (x86 and ARM)
and 2 of their OS's pretty much fill the same role at different scales (RT for ARM tablets, WP for phones and phablets which are ARM based)

 

[Infamy79]

Well, answer me these two questions then:

• What does "true convergence" mean

I see it as tablet and phone devices with ARM processors running the exact same version of Windows as x86 devices, just with different UI, similar to how the unified applications work. The smaller devices will have functionality removed in some places where its not needed such as the Desktop, but add others, such as the phone stack/dialer/SMS, etc for phones.

• Why does it make a lot more sense for WinRT (do you mean Windows RT or WinRT... entirely different things) to be pushed down to phones rather than scaling up WP.

Because otherwise the tablet OS will suffer too much and it will end up being like the difference between iOS and OSX

Some extra information on that last point:
It is always far easier to scale an OS up than to scale an OS down. That might not make sense to people who don't develop software, but you'll have to believe me. MS has already admitted that this is what they are doing. We can already see this happening for WP8.1, in which they incorporated a large part of WinRT's UI stack. This occurred not in preparation for a transition to Windows RT on smartphones, but in preparation to replace it. If they were planning on replacing WP with Windows RT, then they would instead be adding WP's API's to Windows RT so it could run WP apps. That is not what they are doing.

Yes they are (publicly) adding WInRT functionality to the current version of Windows Phone rather than adding Windows Phone functionality to RT, but I see that more as a move to bring Window Phone up to feature parity with Windows RT so that the upgrade/migration from WP8.x to WP9 is more seamless. We have not seen what they are doing with Windows 9 on ARM yet, but we don't know what they are doing behind closed doors. Personally I think they should be making Windows Phone apps compatible with Windows RT prior to the release of Windows 9, but it doesn't seem as though they will do this and are hoping for unified apps to fill that space instead.

 

[neo158]

I see WP and RT merging completely and the ecosystem evolving to be something like this:

3.5" - 6" devices = Windows Phone powered by Windows RT (ARM) - Everyone
7" - 9" devices = Surface Mini powered by Windows RT (ARM, choice of interface*) - Students and Consumers
10" - 12" devices = Surface powered by Windows (x86 using an Atom processor) - Prosumers
12"+ devices = Surface Pro powered by Windows Pro x64 (x86_64 using an i3, i5 or i7) - Business Users

*Either WP or Windows interface based on screen resolution or manufacturer preference.

 

[Mike Gibson]

This whole discussion of WinRT vs WinPRT APIs is moot. You know why? Because the entire RT effort is doomed to failure (discussing it is like discussing the latest Blackberry OS changes, a pointless exercise). If there was one thing in WinRT that illustrates the total design and implementation incompetence at MSFT these days, it's the new FilePicker API in WinPRT 8.1 (for "Universal" apps). Here's a link that explains it all:

How to continue your Windows Phone Store app after calling an AndContinue method (Windows)

If I want a user to be able to pick a single freaking file I have to prepare my app to be terminated and resumed. I couldn't believe when I first read about the "AndContinue" stuff. If MSFT, with all its SDEs, cannot manage to write a FilePicker that doesn't result in an app termination then there is zero hope for the future. That API already demonstrates another incompetent design decision: Async functionality in an OS API.

Prior to the FilePicker discovery I thought I couldn't be more shocked by the design and implementation incompetence of WinRT/WinPRT. The 8.0 versions were terrible ... but the AndContinue sh*t in 8.1 takes it to another level. A few of the people I knew back in the day are still there. I can't believe they'd let something this bad be released ... what happened???

 

[Cleavitt76]

This whole discussion of WinRT vs WinPRT APIs is moot. You know why? Because the entire RT effort is doomed to failure (discussing it is like discussing the latest Blackberry OS changes, a pointless exercise). If there was one thing in WinRT that illustrates the total design and implementation incompetence at MSFT these days, it's the new FilePicker API in WinPRT 8.1 (for "Universal" apps). Here's a link that explains it all:

How to continue your Windows Phone Store app after calling an AndContinue method (Windows)

If I want a user to be able to pick a single freaking file I have to prepare my app to be terminated and resumed. I couldn't believe when I first read about the "AndContinue" stuff. If MSFT, with all its SDEs, cannot manage to write a FilePicker that doesn't result in an app termination then there is zero hope for the future. That API already demonstrates another incompetent design decision: Async functionality in an OS API.

Prior to the FilePicker discovery I thought I couldn't be more shocked by the design and implementation incompetence of WinRT/WinPRT. The 8.0 versions were terrible ... but the AndContinue sh*t in 8.1 takes it to another level. A few of the people I knew back in the day are still there. I can't believe they'd let something this bad be released ... what happened???

You have posted this same rant in many other threads. Same example and everything. Often in situations where it's completely off topic. You seem to be obsessed with it. I won't bother to debate you on this topic again because it's clear to me that there is no rational discussion to be had. The last time you and I debated this you claimed that MS was abandoning all of their Win32 developers. I asked for an example and you said that MS had discontinued DirectX. You cited some unofficial quote from one non-technical guy at AMD. I pointed out that it was a rumor that MS has already stated was completely false in an official press release. However, you continued to insist that DirectX was dead and MS was killing off Win32 development. A month after that discussion MS announced DirectX 12 for Windows and Xbox One.

I too am a developer (.Net mostly) and while you are entitled to your opinion about WinRT and it's design, your opinion is not shared by all developers. Microsoft is not stupid and I'm willing to bet you are not more talented than their entire army of developers. Most people in the know would consider their development tools and frameworks to be the best in the world by a long shot. Their reasoning for designing WinRT as they have is sound in my opinion. WinRT is simply not targeting the type of devices that Win32 programming is typically targeting. As such, there is a need to build more asynchronous calls and safeguards into the framework.

 

[mparker]

What are the advantages of bringing the RT APIs to WP...

One is that the WP API's are older, the WinRT API's have some nifty features. If you're gonna add those features to the phone API anyway then why not be compatible. Another is that there are more WP apps than there are WinRT apps; if WinRT can suddenly run WP apps this goes a long way to reducing the size of that app gap. It was a massive mistake for WinRT to not support WP apps from the very beginning, even if they were restricted to a 1/4 snap view (which is roughly phone-like aspect ratio) for this reason. And unifying the API's is critical for the unified phone & tablet store.

...what is the specific reason that RT was needed as an intermediate step?

It wasn't.

WPF and Silverlight (which was re-used for the WP7 API) came from the developer tools division. WinRT came from the OS division under Sinofsky. Sinofsky was going to do his own thing and the rest of the company could just eff themselves. WinRT is just unnecessarily, gratuitously incompatible with WPF and Silverlight in many places; it's obvious the WinRT guys were flipping the bird at the developer tools guys. Unfortunately they were flipping the bird to all the WPF, Silverlight, and WP developers as well, developers that Microsoft could ill-afford to have turn on them. Sinofsky compounded this error by announcing that WPF, Silverlight, WinForms, and Win32 were all obsolete and all future applications would be written against the WinRT API. Post-Sinofsky they've backtracked on some of this, but unfortunately these were tough mistakes to fix, and may well take years before the damage is undone.

 

[a5cent]

Another is that there are more WP apps than there are WinRT apps; if WinRT can suddenly run WP apps this goes a long way to reducing the size of that app gap.

There is a contradiction in there somewhere...

If WinRT is to run WP apps, then MS would have to port the WP APIs to WinRT. That isn't what they are doing. MS is doing the opposite. That means WP apps won't run in the WinRT environment, but Windows Store apps will eventually run on WP.

Some have argued that MS is just being secretive and that they must be porting the WP APIs to WinRT too. Some believe that this is a necessary step to cross platform compatibility. From my software developer's point of view that seems completely unnecessary and like a complete waste of time and resources to me. I also see absolutely no reason why MS would be secretive only about one of two API porting efforts, when the whole world knows that a unified WinRT API across all OSes is what MS is striving towards.

I completely agree with the second half of your post though. That is what the like is for ;-)

 

[mparker]

There is a contradiction in there somewhere...

If WinRT is to run WP apps, then MS would have to port the WP APIs to WinRT. That isn't what they are doing. MS is doing the opposite. That means WP apps won't run in the WinRT environment, but Windows Store apps will eventually run on WP.

The direction they're doing the merge is irrelevant (except for the developers at Microsoft doing this work). Both Windows RT and Windows Phone will get the combined API, because it's necessary for the unified store that they announced at //Build. There won't be "Windows Phone Apps" and "Windows Store Apps", there will simply be "Windows Store Apps" written to the new combined Windows Store API. It's unlikely that the combined API will be completely compatible with both the current WinRT and WP APIs, but as long as it's easy to get both WinRT and WP apps to the new API that should be ok.

Currently:
WP = NT/ARM kernel + screen/disk/radio/digitizer drivers + WP API
Windows RT = NT/ARM kernel + screen/disk/radio/digitizer drivers + WinRT API + Desktop + Win32 etc
Windows = NT/x86 kernel + screen/disk/radio/digitizer drivers + WinRT API + Desktop + Win32 etc

Future:
WP = NT/ARM kernel + screen/disk/radio/digitizer drivers + WinWPRT API
Windows RT = NT/ARM kernel + screen/disk/radio/digitizer drivers + WinWPRT API + Desktop + Win32 etc
Windows = NT/x86 kernel + screen/disk/radio/digitizer drivers + WinWPRT API + Desktop + Win32 + domain authentication etc

Which will effectively make Windows Phone the "phone edition" of Windows, Windows RT the "tablet edition" of Windows and the various Windows editions the home/professional/server/datacenter editions, whatever they call these various editions in public.

 

[Cleavitt76]

...

Future:
WP = NT/ARM kernel + screen/disk/radio/digitizer drivers + WinWPRT API
Windows RT = NT/ARM kernel + screen/disk/radio/digitizer drivers + WinWPRT API + Desktop + Win32 etc
Windows = NT/x86 kernel + screen/disk/radio/digitizer drivers + WinWPRT API + Desktop + Win32 + domain authentication etc

...

I think a5cent is predicting that it will be more like this...

Future:
Windows ???? = NT/ARM kernel + screen/disk/radio/digitizer drivers + WinWPRT API + ?

Windows Full = NT/x86 kernel + screen/disk/radio/digitizer drivers + WinWPRT API + Desktop + Win32 + domain authentication etc

The first version in this case is derived from building up the Windows Phone code until it can replace what is currently known as Windows RT. The ???? would be some marketing term that may change depending on the target device. For example, Windows Automotive, Windows Phone, Windows for Tablets, Windows IoT, Windows Toaster, etc. However, the code base would be the same and maybe certain features would just be switched on or off (like phone options disabled if installed on a toaster). So a product called "Windows RT" might exist down the road, but not as a separate development project as it does today.

 

[mparker]

I think a5cent is predicting that it will be more like this...

Future:
Windows ???? = NT/ARM kernel + screen/disk/radio/digitizer drivers + WinWPRT API + ?

Windows Full = NT/x86 kernel + screen/disk/radio/digitizer drivers + WinWPRT API + Desktop + Win32 + domain authentication etc

The first version in this case is derived from building up the Windows Phone code until it can replace what is currently known as Windows RT. The ???? would be some marketing term that may change depending on the target device. For example, Windows Automotive, Windows Phone, Windows for Tablets, Windows IoT, Windows Toaster, etc. However, the code base would be the same and maybe certain features would just be switched on or off (like phone options disabled if installed on a toaster). So a product called "Windows RT" might exist down the road, but not as a separate development project as it does today.

The only difference I can see between your roadmap and mine is the elimination of the desktop and Win32 API's. Which may well be the case; certainly once Office RT comes out the desktop won't be necessary for tablets, I left it in there because to my knowledge MS has never publicly stated that it would be removed from their future tablet OS. The direction the merge happens doesn't matter, whether you look at it as adding WinRT to WP or adding WP to WinRT and deleting the desktop the end results are the same.

I guess it's theoretically possible that Microsoft retains a version of Windows for the ARM that has the desktop and Win32 API's but only has the WinRT API and not the combined API. Unlikely (because it means they are still supporting two API's) but certainly possible.

 

[a5cent]

I see it as tablet and phone devices with ARM processors running the exact same version of Windows as x86 devices, just with different UI, similar to how the unified applications work. The smaller devices will have functionality removed in some places where its not needed such as the Desktop, but add others, such as the phone stack/dialer/SMS, etc for phones.

I agree, but I think you go much farther than is necessary. From a developer's point of view, OSes are the same when the runtime model(s) and the APIs they expose look and behave identically. For Windows Store apps (and in the future also for WP apps) WinRT is the OS! Apps don't see or communicate with anything outside of those two things. If an OS simultaneously disallows the execution of any type of software outside the WinRT environment, then users won't see any difference between OSes either, even if what lies below the WinRT layer is very different. If it looks similar and runs the exact same apps, users consider it the same OS. That is convergence.

My point is that OS' don't have to be identical, bit for bit, to achieve that, when just porting WinRT already does.

Because otherwise the tablet OS will suffer too much and it will end up being like the difference between iOS and OSX

I think this is at the heart of our disagreement. It is simply not true. If WP supports the WinRT runtime and API, then it will be able to do the exact same things any Windows Store app on Windows RT can do today. The scaled up WP, which would then take over the role of MS' tablet OS, would suffer nothing at all. The only difference would be that the scaled up WP lacks support for the two decades worth of legacy MS technology that is a necessary part of every Windows (RT) installation, but that shouldn't be a problem once Office is ported to WinRT.

 

[a5cent]

The direction they're doing the merge is irrelevant

Yes and no.

• Merging into WP leaves us with a rather slim 1GB OS install without the desktop.
• Merging into Windows RT leaves us with a 13GB install including two decades worth of legacy desktop functionality that is unnecessary if MS can provide a WinRT compatible version of MS Office.

In terms of the apps each OS could run, yes, it is irrelevant. It is relevant if MS wants Windows tablets to be price competitive with Android tablets however.

The only difference I can see between your roadmap and mine is the elimination of the desktop and Win32 API's. Which may well be the case; certainly once Office RT comes out the desktop won't be necessary for tablets, I left it in there because to my knowledge MS has never publicly stated that it would be removed from their future tablet OS.

An MS representative has publicly stated that they currently maintain three "separate" OSes: Windows, Windows RT and Windows Phone, and that this is one too many. That is one reason why I think you need to reduce your list down to two, as Cleavitt76 suggested.