Our Surface 2's future

[John Steffes]

I can not speak for others, but I have my Surface RT 64G, boot into the Desktop, and have it configured to show All Apps, so I hardly see the Start Screen... I use many Apps at the same time, Calculator, IE (with many tabs open), Outlook, Word, Excel, Notepad, One Note and Xbox Music in the background. I cut/paste between apps which can not be done in the immersive shell mode...

I view the Surface as a Tablet that can be a laptop some times, and the Surface Pro as a Laptop that can be a Tablet sometimes...

Now I use the Surface like a laptop 98% of the time, besides when I watch a movie or view a Store App (Snack on Apps), but for the most part I use my Surface RT 64G as a laptop in a tablet form, I always have the keyboard connected and an external mouse (I even have it connected to the Surface Pro Docking station).

What I have come to know is none of us on this forum in this Thread work for Microsoft, and nobody knows what they will do for our Surface RT/2, but if they remove the Desktop they just killed productivity for me... I have a laptop (really about 10 of them), I have servers (about 3 of them), Desktops (about 5 of them), I have tablets (webOS/Android Touchpad, NextBook Androids, and my wife has an iPad Mini), so if I wanted another Tablet I would not have looked at Windows or Windows RT...

I wanted a productive environment that works like Windows does, I love the Desktop and if Microsoft wants to close the doors on the Desktop, then they just closed the doors on me ever getting a Windows Tablet ever again... I will stick with Android or iOS as their App Stores and Browsers have more options... Although the Multi-tasking is great in Windows (Desktop Mode), Windows (Immersive Apps) sucks..

 

[a5cent]

​Has the general opinion changed over that time? Perhaps. But it was clearly anti-desktop at some point in the past... and may still be.

I don't know about being anti-desktop. The few people I know that have a Surface/2 just don't care (admittedly completely anecdotal).

Every one of them would say that as long as they can use MS Word, they're perfectly fine without the desktop.

 

[etphoto]

I don't know about being anti-desktop. The few people I know that have a Surface/2 just don't care (admittedly completely anecdotal).

Every one of them would say that as long as they can use MS Word, they're perfectly fine without the desktop.

I would agree with this. Just out of boredom I starting playing with desktop mode (because of this thread) to see if I'm missing something.

 

[a5cent]

I would agree with this. Just out of boredom I starting playing with desktop mode (because of this thread) to see if I'm missing something.

I think John Steffes explained it well. It's NOT about what you can do, but how you do it, and 90% of that issue revolves around multi-tasking. I think that is a valid complaint.
However, I disagree with how those complaints are being directly associated with the desktop. The desktop is not an essential/fundamental part of the Windows multi-tasking experience. In other words, there is no reason W10 mobile couldn't offer very similar multitasking mechanics, entirely without the desktop. At least in that regard, I consider the desire for the desktop somewhat of a proxy-feature-request. It's calling for one thing, when it's actually something else that is wanted. Add in a taskbar and the ability to float snapped Windows, and the immersive environment might already be very close to offering the same multitasking mechanics, entirely without the desktop. We'll have to wait and see...

 

[fatclue_98]

I think John Steffes explained it well. It's NOT about what you can do, but how you do it, and 90% of that issue revolves around multi-tasking. I think that is a valid complaint.
However, I disagree with how those complaints are being directly associated with the desktop. The desktop is not an essential/fundamental part of the Windows multi-tasking experience. In other words, there is no reason W10 mobile couldn't offer very similar multitasking mechanics, entirely without the desktop. At least in that regard, I consider the desire for the desktop somewhat of a proxy-feature-request. It's calling for one thing, when it's actually something else that is wanted. Add in a taskbar and the ability to float snapped Windows, and the immersive environment might already be very close to offering the same multitasking mechanics, entirely without the desktop. We'll have to wait and see...

I hate to disagree but desktop IS multi-tasking. There is no method easier than selecting tabs on the taskbar. All your open progs in one place without having to long-press this or swipe that.

 

[a5cent]

I hate to disagree but desktop IS multi-tasking. There is no method easier than selecting tabs on the taskbar. All your open progs in one place without having to long-press this or swipe that.

That's just how it is now. There is no reason that a future version of the immersive environment couldn't support those same multitasking mechanics without the desktop though. Like I said, add a taskbar (or something that serves the same purpose) and the ability to float snapped apps to the immersive environment, and you'd already be very close to the same thing, entirely without the desktop. I'm not talking about how it is now, buy how it could be.
My main point is that it's only convention and/or tradition that we associate multitasking with the desktop, nothing more. As a result, if it's multitasking we want, it may be premature to assume that will only be possible if the desktop is retained.

 

[fatclue_98]

That's just how it is now. There is no reason that a future version of the immersive environment couldn't support those same multitasking mechanics without the desktop though. Like I said, add a taskbar (or something that serves the same purpose) and the ability to float snapped apps to the immersive environment, and you'd already be very close to the same thing, entirely without the desktop. I'm not talking about how it is now, buy how it could be.
My main point is that it's only convention and/or tradition that we associate multitasking with the desktop, nothing more. As a result, if it's multitasking we want, it may be premature to assume that will only be possible if the desktop is retained.

If MS can adopt that kind of multi-tasking, great. The problem is, nobody has come up with a better solution than what we're used to. OS X uses the same dock-style taskbar we've been using since Vista. XP was similar but not as functional as what we have now. On the mobile front, only on webOS's "cards" did we enjoy a suitable multi-tasking UX. Unless MS can come up with an equal replacement, why ditch the desktop? It's not like it's hogging up valuable resources. I wasn't one of those screaming for the start button and all that craziness when Windows 8 came out. There's a certain usefulness that I enjoy with the Metro UI when I just want to read emails or kick back and laugh at some of the crazy stuff my friends post on FB. But when I need to get some serious work done, I want that desktop. Windows is productivity-based and some of us old turds like it that way. The RT doesn't have much going for it in the apps department - I think they should at least leave what makes it attractive to some of us.

 

[onlysublime]

I'm glad to hear that at least Surface 2 will be getting Windows 10 (heard them saying it on Windows Weekly). Things are murky for Surface RT though.

I hope there is a desktop option for Windows 10 RT though. I do like Modern apps. However, some things are easier with desktop especially moving files around. It's just so easy to drag them from window to window, especially with longer filenames. The problem I have with the file pickers in Windows 8.1 is that if you have a really long filename, you can't see the whole name in the tile. And I have a bunch of files that are long and named the same except for a different ending. This is impossible to decipher one file from another with the Modern interface. And the pop-up to show the filename doesn't work many times (especially if you're doing purely touch). They need to be more flexible with the tile size.

I just have an easier sense of what's happening with a desktop and doing it the PC way. Tablet interfaces try to hide too much which makes it hard to do basic things like move files between partitions, etc.

 

[James Ng1]

Oh god no...please don't take away the desktop. FOR ME, i have no need for windows software. I don't need photoshop, work software (teamviewer or others), most of my work is on the cloud (onedrive or cloud based softwares...i have people working in multiple locations). THe surface 2 is perfect for me. It's awesome looking and cheap, better than chromebooks. Got mine for 298 AUD plus 110 for the typecover. It has UBS 3 as well.

so it is basically my 'PC' (even though it's RT). take away the desktop and...well it'll be different. i hope they keep it in some form.

 

[bdball]

Was at Best Buy today and they had no Surface 2's on display (Only Surface Pro 3's). They also only had a couple Typepad 2's, no Touchpad Keyboards. Went online to Windowsstore.com and the 64g Surface 2 is sold out. I'm thinking that after Christmas the Surface 2 will be a discontinued item. No more RT?

 

[onlysublime]

Was at Best Buy today and they had no Surface 2's on display (Only Surface Pro 3's). They also only had a couple Typepad 2's, no Touchpad Keyboards. Went online to Windowsstore.com and the 64g Surface 2 is sold out. I'm thinking that after Christmas the Surface 2 will be a discontinued item. No more RT?

RT and Windows Phone will become Windows 10 and merged as Windows 10 for ARM. Windows 10 will be divided as PC and mobile so tablets and phones go under mobile. This is what's being said by Windows insiders. Who knows what happens. Plans change. But as for current Surface 2 (and I would assume Nokia 2520) owners, things look up for getting Windows 10. I wouldn't hold out much hope for Surface RT users. I think that device is too slow as it is for Windows 10.

 

[Ed Boland]

I did notice, on a somewhat related tidbit of news, that the Nokia 2520 (RT) tablet is no longer listed on AT&T's "Shop AT&T" page...

 

[John Steffes]

In the past there were various interviews with Microsoft execs who indicated that the presence of the desktop was a decision made simply because there was no Modern UI version of Office available when they released the Surface.

The implication was that the desktop was not in their original plan for Windows RT devices and that once MS Office for MUI is released, there would be no reason for the desktop.

That's a mistake IMO since I found the desktop to be greatly valuable in using my Surface RT and Surface 2.

From the looks of it Microsoft can read...

Windows Central welcomes these verified Microsoft employees to our Support Forums! | Windows Central

If you want to keep your customers keep the Desktop on ARM (Surface RT/Surface 2) as an option, if people want the Desktop, they should be able to have the Desktop, if they want the Office Apps (as Desktop Apps) let this be an option... Some do not want the Desktop, I get that, I do not agree, but that is their option, just allow me to have my option...

 

[a5cent]

^ I think you'll have that option either way though. Possibly not on a W10 ARM tablet, but then you'd get it on an Atom based Surface. I'm guessing very likely one or the other.

 

[Cruncher04]

I think John Steffes explained it well. It's NOT about what you can do, but how you do it, and 90% of that issue revolves around multi-tasking. I think that is a valid complaint.

Again you making wrong assumptions about why the desktop is important. I make s short breakdown:

1) Desktop Apps are the preferred solution for Keyboard/Mouse/Monitor usage for several reasons. Try running a metro app on a 27 inch screen to see what I mean. So even if Metro Office is available for tablets, anyone would use desktop Office when connected to a monitor.
2) Desktop Apps are not suspended when in background. This features is simply not available for the WinRT sandbox.
3) The only reasonable scripting environment (PowerShell) is only available for desktop. And yes scripts are not suspended in background either.
4) Desktop is the only way to manage your machine. This starts from installing and manage device drivers, system services, file system and ACLs, full registry access, process and thread management, side-loading of programs, storage management etc...
5) Desktop offers the only meaningful way to share your local resources with the network (e.g. file and printer sharing)
6) Desktop/WIn32 is the only environment, where you have full administrative permissions. Try calling a Win32 API from WinRT sandbox to see what I mean. WinRT sandbox is such restricted that nothing is allowed which requires higher permission level.
7) Only WIN32 APIs allows you to manage virtual memory and cache. This makes a whole class of applications, which use dynamic code generation inherently not available for WinRT. Ever seen something like dosbox unter WinRT? Of course not. However it is available for jailbroken Windows RT devices, where you can use Win32 API from desktop apps.

There are certainly more reasons, but I just put up the most important ones. I did not even mentioned the fact that Office and Outlook is not available for WinRT, because it would not help my points above at all.

Possibly not on a W10 ARM tablet, but then you'd get it on an Atom based Surface.

You bring up an important point. Why restrict options, when you want to succeed in the market? I am not interested in an Atom based devices still I want the desktop. I would rather go Android or Apple when the desktop is missing from ARM based Windows devices because the big advantage of having Windows would be gone immediately.
Microsoft is so much ahead of competition, when it comes to ARM based devices with the current Windows RT offering. It excels over Android devices, Chromebooks and iPads. They are just about throwing this away when killing desktop.

 

[a5cent]

Again you making wrong assumptions about why the desktop is important.

No. I just failed to mention the things that are important to YOU. I could be wrong, but I doubt you'll find many people who expect the same things from a Windows RT tablet as you do, even amongst RT desktop supporters.

You bring up an important point. Why restrict options, when you want to succeed in the market? I am not interested in an Atom based devices still I want the desktop.

IMHO that statement is the crux of your situation. What you want is support for Win32 and all the administrative and management tools that come with it... in addition to supporting the kind of workflow enabled by Win32's multitasking model. You too are calling for desktop support as a proxy for those features. Basically, what you want is a full blown Windows PC in a netbook form factor. To me, your insistence that such a device use an ARM CPU seems artificial. Why? Modern day low-power Intel CPUs no longer have any downsides but come with a whole range of benefits, including vastly superior compatibility with drivers that support almost every piece of hardware on the market, including every last printer. For Surface 2 like devices even a low-power i3 is fast becoming a viable and desirable option, that would smoke any ARM competition, not to mention that the prices for such systems are plummeting.

Going below that we soon reach the sub $200 netbook class. Here RT simply has no hope of ever competing with low-end Android tablets. RT is simply too heavy (installation size, RAM and CPU requirements) to keep up. That is what W10M will accomplish, by stripping out 10GB and twenty years worth of legacy functionality associated with Win32 (or the desktop if that is what you want to call it).

In summary, on the smaller/cheaper side, WP (W10M) will support larger screen sizes and become much more capable, while on the larger/costlier side modern day netbooks with x86 support are becoming ridiculously small and cheap. Those developments have robbed RT of its purpose. It's essentially being squeezed out of the market from both sides.

The market is changing and to me you seem stuck in the here & now. MS is not limiting your options. You are limiting your options, by imposing artificial restrictions.

 

[John Steffes]

Windows on Arm with Office has a big place in the market, in my opinion, If Windows 10 changes that I will stick with Windows 8.1, fine with me. But Windows 10 builds on the best of Windows 7 and Windows 8/8.1, Managing Windows Store apps like traditional Windows Desktop Apps, Start Menu, true multitasking (like Windows has always had), the Desktop is what shows it, but it is not just the desktop, it is the inter-operability of all the Apps together that is what makes the Desktop Mode so powerful, Yes managing files/printers/drivers/registry/etc... is nice, but being able to have Word, Excel, Calculator, IE (with multi-tabs), notepad, one note, etc... and be able to cut/paste content without boarders or barriers. The Tablet that can sometimes be a laptop is what the Surface/Surface 2 are to some of us. We want the tablet side and the Desktop side to both be there... Yes Intel will get in the market and wash out some... But ARM has a place, battery life, Stable Apps (have to be Microsoft Certified thru the store), little to no viruses (at the moment)... The best is they run cooler, no fans, this changes the games on the purpose and use cases. I love the Surface RT 64G device I have, it works well with Windows 8.1, I would love the idea/concept of Windows 10, on better ARM hardware, but that is up to OEM's and Microsoft.

 

[Cruncher04]

I could be wrong, but I doubt you'll find many people who expect the same things from a Windows RT tablet as you do, even amongst RT desktop supporters

I am pretty sure you are wrong. Note, that I am not claiming that everyone needs all the features. Everyone might even use a subset of the features, but it is not neccesarily the same subset. But if you take the union of all subsets you will come to a pretty much full featured OS as requirement.
I am very certain that the majority of RT users have an non empty intersection with the features i named above - and that is the most important metric here.

For Surface 2 like devices even a low-power i3 is fast becoming a viable and desirable option, that would smoke any ARM competition, not to mention that the prices for such systems are plummeting.

Wrong assumption again. ARM is currently smoking anything Intel has to offer in performance/watt and that is despite the technological disadvantage. There is nothing competitive in the x86 world compared to Exynos Octa (Cortex A57), Tegra K1 or Apple A8. Exynos Octa delivers Core M performance with a power envelope to put into a smartphone. And this is with a 20nm planar process compared to Core M 14nm FinFET. And do not even get me started on Apples custom ARM SoCs. We are seeing how ARM v8 architecture approaching Intel core level of performance leaving Atoms behind. You can buy devices with above mentioned SoCs as we speak - Android and iOS only of course. At the same time Airmont is only a Tick and Goldmont is more than a year away.
On top of this, there is almost no chance of getting a virus with Windows RT - an ARM SoC is basically a HW protection against Windows Viruses.

RT is simply too heavy (installation size, RAM and CPU requirements) to keep up.

Installation size possibly, but CPU and RAM requirements are pretty much on Android level. But that's not even the point. I do not need a cheap $200 device. I need a device, which fulfills my requirements in the first place. I would not even buy a tablet with less than 1GByte of RAM.
There is nothing wrong in having Windows RT in more expensive tablets. There is also nothing wrong in offering a dumbed down version like Windows 10 Mobile for extremely cheap devices....in addition! I doubt that those tablets would sell though, as they were just robbed any advantage over android.

For Surface 2 like devices even a low-power i3 is fast becoming a viable and desirable option

Not even close. Might be desirable for YOU. Didn't you read about how the brand new Core M (Broadwell) processors are fast throttling down to 500MHz under load due to thermal issues? And that is on relatively large devices with an active cooler and at a Surface Pro price point. Why would I ever consider such a device, given that I do not need x86 compatibility?

MS is not limiting your options. You are limiting your options, by imposing artificial restrictions.

There is nothing artificial in my requirement to have the best SoC available in my device of choice. This rules out Intels SoC immediately as I did explain above. If an x86 tablet is fine for YOU, that's ok as there are more than enough options. Also take note, that I own a Surface Pro 3 in addition to my Surface 2. It is fine for what it is...a Ultrabook replacement more than a tablet. A Surface 3 with high-end ARM SoC (assuming it is offering full featured Windows) would be an immediate buy from me, an x86 version not so much.
And the best thing for Microsoft, they do not even have to do much than just offering an ARM version of Windows, which is an extremely low hanging fruit (compared to developing Windows Mobile into something remotely useful for tablets).

 

[frimar21]

EDIT Sorry for the long wall of text, and for my English!..
---
Ha! the discussion is growing every day... my friend we could speculate on our needs and on our ideas, but you know how MS works... they will do what someone in charge of it will decide, and surely he/she will take that decision without reading this post... and probably this manager won't have any deep technical understanding of ARM/Intel processor... IMHO, it is not who is right and who is wrong, but who is closer to that manager idea of the future...
At this point I suppose we should only present our needs, not try to fight for ARM or Intel, or for a W10 for RT (assuming that Joe Belfiore said that it will exist) with or without desktop... EXCEPT if YOU have any direct, internal, ultra-secret information coming from MS....
So, as I said in a previous post, I love my Surface 2 RT as it is, with a desktop that can be used when needed, if something is not present or not working as I am used to in the other way. I'm talking about Office, about IE, about copying and pasting... will I upgrade it to W10? probably yes, in any case, because I love to update every electronic thing I own to the last OS/firmware... will I be happy of the update? actually not if MS will take the decision to remove the desktop or yes if the trade off will be to have all the WP apps also on the surface...
Because this is something that is even more important, and that you should not forget about: the apps...
Today the limit I perceive of my Surface is the lack in applications I need to fully replace my laptop (i.e. an app to open, modify and save Access files...), and to at least partially replace my iPad (some popular games, why not, or some updated social apps, like the twitter client, or new apps like Vine...)
why no one here is talking about apps? it is really such important to have a new W10 for ARM with Desktop and no app to install on it?
Maybe the real problem is this one, not the cost to MS to develop an ARM version but the efforts to have third parties developing apps...
..
Long life to ours SURFACE 2

 

[Cruncher04]

Maybe the real problem is this one, not the cost to MS to develop an ARM version but the efforts to have third parties developing apps...

I do not get the point. The questions are orthogonal and not related, right?
MS has no cost of developing an "ARM version" because before compilation there is not such a thing like an ARM version. They developing the Windows code in C/C++ and then just compile for ARM or x86. There certainly is some cost associated with testing. As i mentioned above there is much less cost assiated with just deploying full Windows (including all features like desktop) on ARM tablets than developing a tablet UI on top of Windows Phone/Mobile. I would even argue, that removing the desktop with all the dependencies is much more effort than leaving the desktop in on top of the fact that you are creating more variants, which require more testing.
Now the apps question is completely unrelated. But in order to give incentives to developers to make apps for the platform you need users. It has been shown in the past, that a large percentage of app-store downloads were done from RT devices. The reason here is clear, RT user are much more likely to access the app store than say Surface Pro users, who use their tablet as laptop replacement.