Our Surface 2's future

[a5cent]

This is everything we know so far.
Windows RT-based Surface and Surface 2 will only get some of the features of Windows 10 | Windows Central

We've known for a long time that RT is dead. However, that MS is allegedly working on some kind of update slightly contradicts the point Daniel makes in that article, where he states that this is effectively WP7.8 all over again. If we're getting updates for RT devices, it's not comparable to WP7.8.

I suspect MJF is correct in her assumption that what is coming to RT devices will not be W10. In other words, the update is very unlikely to be a W10 RT. Based on the rumours and titbits that have leaked so far, I think I'm ready to make my first RT update prediction (you heard it here first):

I think MS will take W8RT, add to that the newest incarnations of the WinRT API and runtime from W10, and call it a day. That would give us none of the desktop features from W10, but RT devices would retain the W8 desktop (which many here want), and it would make RT devices 100% compatible with all the newest apps from the Windows Store, including those that were built for W10. If true, I think that would represent a very reasonable compromise.

 

[jhoff80]

See, my guess is actually that they want to add the desktop WinRT stuff to the Surface 2/RT. In future products, ARM-based tablets are going to be using the <8" SKU of Windows 10, which would mean they're really going to be running Windows Phone. Obviously, that'd be a downgrade to Surface RT and Surface 2, which have the full-featured versions of Office (and should be considered more Chromebook competitors than anything else, in my opinion).

Because of that, I bet they'll get a customized version of ARM Windows 10, which includes the newer app framework AND the ability to run WinRT stuff on a desktop. They just can't downgrade the Surface to a Windows Phone-based OS, because one of the things they advertised was the ability to run full Office. They probably also don't want to commit to future updates for it, so saying it's a custom thing that isn't 10 but has some of the features of 10 allows them to do that.

Of course, Microsoft is the only one that knows for sure.

 

[Nokia_Lumia]

I am a Lumia 2520 owner, but activity is not as high over there on the forums. I think we actually will have devices superior than any new Win10 8'' tablets, since those devices would not have the desktop - we will. And we will be able to run the same apps as Win10. So I think this is actually a win-win. I would not like my RT tablet to be downgraded to a phone OS. Essentially, this is 8.7, not 7.8 lol.

 

[a5cent]

Because of that, I bet they'll get a customized version of ARM Windows 10, which includes the newer app framework AND the ability to run WinRT stuff on a desktop.

In what way would you consider that not to be a full blown W10RT?

 

[jhoff80]

Well, one, I don't see any of the new start screen, Continuum, notification center type stuff coming.... just a button to come out of full-screen mode and make apps windowed. They demoed stuff like that running on Windows 8, so I think they'd be able to do that without upgrading all of the other stuff.

​Edit: I should also probably mention that I am really bad at making predictions like this.

 

[John Steffes]

...
I think MS will take W8RT, add to that the newest incarnations of the WinRT API and runtime from W10, and call it a day. That would give us none of the desktop features from W10, but RT devices would retain the W8 desktop (which many here want), and it would make RT devices 100% compatible with all the newest apps from the Windows Store, including those that were built for W10. If true, I think that would represent a very reasonable compromise.

I hope Microsoft takes the same approach they did with Windows 8/8.1, they take the Windows 10 code compile it for ARM, keeping the same limited functionality the existing Windows 8.1 RT has, take the newer Office 2016, compile that code for ARM, keeping the same limited functionality the existing Office 2013 has. This will keep them at the same code base and they can release similar patches for Full Windows 10 versus the Windows 10 (Compiled for ARM, I will call it Windows RT 10 (if you look at the current version it is Windows RT 8.1),.and Microsoft Office 2016 RT (if you look at the current version it is Microsoft Office 2013 RT).

That would make perfect sense and it would also fit in their existing FAQ's of the Surface RT/Surface 2/Windows RT 8.x/Office 2013 RT, with the limited functionality it would also fit with their statements of not getting the full Windows 10 (x86/Mobile code base).

Now if I was Microsoft and I released a bunch of devices (Surface RT/Surface 2/Nokia Lumia 2520), I would think I should support them in their life cycle, at least if I was a company that cared about it's image, users, stock holders (which I am one), developers, etc...

 

[a5cent]

^ That would in fact be W10RT, and it's hard to see MS putting that much effort into an OS, for a product they no longer intend to produce.

Neither Paul Thurott nor MJF think that is what MS is doing. I think if MS was intending to release a W10RT, as you're suggesting, there is no reason they would not have said so by now. Furthermore, even if MS claimed that RT devices would get full W10, nobody would take that to mean that we'd suddenly be able to install desktop applications. As such, interpreting the statement "we won't get full W10" to mean we'll get a full W10RT, seems like wishful thinking. Although you never know with MS, I doubt even they would communicate in that way.

Finally, even with my prediction that is a bit more limited (compared to your ideal scenario), you'd still be getting all the most important things. Practically everything you previously said was important to you. You'd still have the desktop. You'd still have full Office. MS wouldn't force you to use a more restricted smartphone OS. And you'd be given the ability to run all W10 apps. Given the situation, that sounds pretty good to me.

 

[John Steffes]

The issue with a few updates to Windows RT 8.1, say they call it Windows RT 8.2, they still would have to compile and release separate code for patches for Windows RT 8.2 (differences between RT 8.1 and RT 8.2), which in my opinion would be more of a hassle then they want...

The other thing they can do, is continue to support Surface RT/Surface 2/Nokia Lumina 2520 as is with Windows RT 8.1 and Office 2013 RT, and continue supporting both Windows RT 8.1 and Windows 10, which to me does not make sense...

Again why would developers care to make Windows Store Apps (compiled for ARM)?, Only Universal Apps will be produced and the App(s) we have for RT will get even worse then they are now... I would assume they want users who bought their devices happy, but...

Again, I am under the thought they want to make their support channel easier not harder.. But nobody besides Microsoft knows, and they are not telling...

 

[a5cent]

The issue with a few updates to Windows RT 8.1, say they call it Windows RT 8.2, they still would have to compile and release separate code for patches for Windows RT 8.2 (differences between RT 8.1 and RT 8.2), which in my opinion would be more of a hassle then they want......

W8.1 will continue to receive updates long after W10 is released. Older versions of Windows have traditionally received the ability to install the newest versions of the .NET framework and runtime. What I'm speculating MS will do with W8.1RT is really just that. As that would be applied to all versions of W8.1, including W8.1RT, I don't think that creates any more hassle then what MS must already contend with anyway. It may even make things easier, as it frees W10 devs from having to regression test WRT related features, which a full W10RT would require.

Again why would developers care to make Windows Store Apps (compiled for ARM)?, Only Universal Apps will be produced and the App(s) we have for RT will get even worse then they are now.

Technically, universal apps are the subset of Windows Store apps, which are built to use W10's WinRT API and can reconfigure their UI to run on screens of various sizes. Just like Java applications, almost all Windows Store apps are CPU architecture agnostic, so the difference between ARM vs. x86 doesn't factor into this. The point is, that updating the API and runtime will allow all the ARM based devices you mentioned to run universal apps, without developers having to target/support those tablets specifically.

A small addendum: I also wouldn't be surprised if MS back ported the W10 notification centre to W8.1RT, provided that is considered a requirement to run universal apps as intended. I think it might be, so I'm adding that to my update prediction as well.

 

[Cruncher04]

^ That would in fact be W10RT, and it's hard to see MS putting that much effort into an OS, for a product they no longer intend to produce.

Actually for effort reasons I still assume it is Windows 10 RT rather than based off the Windows 8.1 baseline. Backporting and integrating new features into older releases is typically much more effort than just using the latest baseline.
On top of this you would integrate features into software versions, which are never tested together, so you have much verification effort too.
So my prediction would be Windows 10

 

[a5cent]

^ You're just overlooking a few points.

I already mentioned the .NET framework and runtime. Those are examples of components MS has always provided for older versions of Windows, meaning they will be doing some back porting either way, irrespective of whether I'm predicting correctly or not. If they do that for W8.1 (and include the latest WinRT API which is unlikely to require any back porting at all), then MS won't have to do much more than a recompilation to provide the same for W8.1RT.

They'd likely back port anything else required to achieve compatibility to W10 apps, although that might already be all that is needed.

 

[John Steffes]

Maybe I miss-understand where Microsoft is going, They are moving Windows from a purchase license to use OS, to a subscription service license to use OS, now software might be different, but if I was Microsoft, I would get as many computers moved over to Windows 10, then I can say hey you got it free on this device for life (as stated in the January Windows 10 Video), but on any new computer you will have to pay for your updates/os month to month, or year to year... Maybe they will add it to Office 365, do not know...

But if that is what they are doing what they did last time with Windows XP, Vista, 7, does not make sense of Windows 8.1, I thought they already made Windows 8 end of life (meaning they stopped supporting Windows 8) and I thought they also said they will not support Windows 8.1 unless it was Windows 8.1 Update 1?

So what would make them still support Windows 8.1 Update 1? Push everyone including RT/Mobile/Desktop/Laptop/2-1, to Windows 10... They even said after some point asking what version of Windows are you on will stop making sense...

 

[Cruncher04]

I already mentioned the .NET framework and runtime. Those are examples of components MS has always provided for older versions of Windows, meaning they will be doing some back porting either way, irrespective of whether I'm predicting correctly or not.

Well, contrary to WinRT .Net was always a standalone component interfacing with many versions of the underlying OS. WinRT itself is much more embedded. This means there are new required interfaces exposed by kernel services.
Keep in mind, .Net != WinRT, which i consider btw quite unfortunate. WinRT is like taking .Net and WPF, mixing everything together, reshuffling and then make it sufficiently different, such that your old .Net code is mostly useless.

They'd likely back port anything else required to achieve compatibility to W10 apps, although that might already be all that is needed.

That is precisely what i was talking about -> backporting and testing is much more expensive than using the Windows 10 baseline, where everything is already integrated and tested.

 

[a5cent]

WinRT itself is much more embedded. This means there are new required interfaces exposed by kernel services.
Keep in mind, .Net != WinRT

I realize WinRT is more intertwined with the rest of the OS than the .NET BCL, but the CLR is also part of .NET, and that is just as intertwined with the OS, yet it is regularly back ported. I'd say if they can back port the CLR they'll be able to back port WinRT too.

By far the biggest OS level dependency WinRT has on Windows is DirectX. If MS wanted to make things really easy on themselves, they could just decide to have WinRT continue to use DirectX 11 on W10, which for all we know may be exactly what they are doing.

That is precisely what i was talking about -> backporting and testing is much more expensive than using the Windows 10 baseline, where everything is already integrated and tested.

Seriously. How likely do you think it is that MS will not want to enable W10 apps on W7, the platform most enterprise customers will still be using for quite some time? I think that question by itself already makes a very strong case that MS will do whatever it takes to make that happen. With that I rest my case.

 

[Cruncher04]

Seriously. How likely do you think it is that MS will not want to enable W10 apps on W7, the platform most enterprise customers will still be using for quite some time? I think that question by itself already makes a very strong case that MS will do whatever it takes to make that happen. With that I rest my case.

I am not talking about who wants what but about a reasonably effortless solution. Of course you can still be right if Microsoft decides to invest more and is going to deliver a really specialized upgrade based on Windows 8.1.
Would not mind to have an unlocked desktop either, where 3rd party apps can be executed.... still missing a few things like Notepad++.
I am already happy that they are not going to scrap the desktop by "upgrading" to Windows 10 mobile aka Windows Phone as many have speculated before. This would have been the worst case scenario by far.

 

[anon(5348756)]

I like how this debate has been going so far. However, I keep thinking MS should just give us the mobile SKU of Win10 four our Surfaces. It is already compiled and runs on ARM hardware - phones - and since apps are universal they're inherently capable of adjusting to different screen sizes. So if we get the mobile SKU on our 10" Surfaces, we'll get the same system as the phone - AKA desktopless - and all the other updates to Win10: Universal Office (if there's no more desktop we will lose Office 2013 RT but gain the modern apps), Spartan browser and all the newer/swifter code in Win10.

This way MS doesn't have to support one more platform, as it's the same mobile SKU, we only "lose" the desktop (useless anyway) and desktop office (moot since we gain Universal Office).

Seems like the best course of action for both MS and consumers if you ask me.

 

[Nickkk101]

please ignore my general ignorance here about the specifics of runtimes, API's etc..im a consumer not a dev.. but hearing about the Raspberry Pi release is 'ARM' would that give us cause for optimism in any way?

 

[a5cent]

please ignore my general ignorance here about the specifics of runtimes, API's etc..im a consumer not a dev.. but hearing about the Raspberry Pi release is 'ARM' would that give us cause for optimism in any way?

I don't see how that factors into the Windows RT update debate, because I don't see how that changes MS' calculations for what is worthwhile doing for Windows RT devices and what isn't.

The Rasperry Pi 2 doesn't run the same version of Windows as any of the other devices. It is stripped down to the bone and not really comparable to anything else called W10.

 

[Nickkk101]

I don't see how that factors into the Windows RT update debate, because I don't see how that changes MS' calculations for what is worthwhile doing for Windows RT devices and what isn't.

The Rasperry Pi 2 doesn't run the same version of Windows as any of the other devices. It is stripped down to the bone and doesn't even run Windows store apps (universal or otherwise). It's not really comparable to anything else called W10.

ok, got it cheers.

I had thought it was more of an issue of MS's resources and willingness rather than a technical thing. Like i said, I'm a consumer-not a tech nut..
I did not know the differences with the RPi version, so that's helpful to know.

 

[a5cent]

I had thought it was more of an issue of MS's resources and willingness rather than a technical thing. Like i said, I'm a consumer-not a tech nut..
I did not know the differences with the RPi version, so that's helpful to know.

You thought correctly. At its most basic level, the question is what MS will get out of Windows RT being able to run W10 apps (or the consequences of not having that ability), weighed against how expensive MS estimates that effort to be. That's technical only in the sense that technical issues influence cost.

My point is that the existence of W10 for the Rasperry Pi 2 doesn't make MS' W10 compatibility endeavors for Windows RT more or less expensive.

Last but not least, that W10 for Rasperry 2 won't run Store apps is incorrect. I was thinking about W10 IoT devices not coming with the full .NET framework, but that is not required for Store apps to function, so pardon my brain hickup there. The Rasperry 2 will run all store apps, but again, that isn't of any importance as far as Windows RT is concerned.