I don't know about anyone else but the reason I am assuming this is because I have a hard time imagining just how they will ever port over the complexity and hundreds of settings and features of desktop Office to Metro Office. Have you used Office for iPad? I have a feeling Metro Office will be quite similar. Can you think of any Metro app so far that is remotely as complex as desktop Office? It's just a basic UI constraint I feel, but maybe MS will prove me wrong. We'll see. If Metro Office turns out not to be feature equivalent to desktop Office then I'll choose not to upgrade the OS even if it's free, and eventually toss the device, give up on RT entirely and buy one that runs full Windows instead.
Windows RT is dead?
- Thread starter Jonathanmr7
- Start date
I don't know about anyone else but the reason I am assuming this is because I have a hard time imagining just how they will ever port over the complexity and hundreds of settings and features of desktop Office to Metro Office. Have you used Office for iPad? I have a feeling Metro Office will be quite similar. Can you think of any Metro app so far that is remotely as complex as desktop Office? It's just a basic UI constraint I feel, but maybe MS will prove me wrong. We'll see. If Metro Office turns out not to be feature equivalent to desktop Office then I'll choose not to upgrade the OS even if it's free, and eventually toss the device, give up on RT entirely and buy one that runs full Windows instead.
neo158
Active member
- Oct 6, 2011
- 2,722
- 1
- 36
Yes, RT has got Desktop applications, Office and Windows utilities... for now, Windows RT 9 WILL remove the desktop and add a touch based version of Office. Saying that Windows RT REQUIRES the desktop to function as an OS is like saying that iOS REQUIRES the MacOS Desktop in order to function as an OS, it doesn't and as I said before in RT they WILL remove the desktop. How do you know otherwise?
Different users have different usage scenarios and if you can't see that then that's your problem, I have no need for desktop applications on a tablet as I have a desktop for that, so I appreciate being able to use my tablet for 10 hours, not in one day, but knowing that I have enough power to last for several hours usage over several days is a good thing, are you saying that it isn't?
You seem to have a lot of hatred for anything touch based and unfortunately mobile computing IS the way forward and you're going to get left behind if continue hating on touch screen computing and the WinRT APIs.
I completely disagree, I have a surface RT 64G, I use it as a replacement for Windows XP, I have tweaked Windows RT 8.1 to go to the desktop, I use outlook, word, IE, basic internet access and Remote Desktop, for a Laptop replacement it has surpassed my expectation, I understand others want a tablet to do tablet things, but this is a hybrid device, it can be used as both, to remove the desktop would be suicide to the hybrid design, even in their keynotes they mentioned the market they were trying to design these for. I use the device as a tablet, and I use it as a laptop (Windows XP) replacement...
If Microsoft in Windows RT 10 removes the desktop, then they have destroyed the hybrid design they created the Surface RT/2 for... I understand everyone has their opinion this is my take on it...
Last edited:
Philip Hamm
New member
- Jul 28, 2014
- 249
- 0
- 0
John Steffes I agree in a way. I love that the desktop is there on my Surface. However, if they make touch based Office that's just as powerful as the Desktop versions, and also make a touch based file manager, and touch based Notepad, I'll be happy.
fatclue_98
Retired Moderator
- Apr 1, 2012
- 9,146
- 1
- 38
My only beef with RT has always been the lack of pen input and the omission of Windows Journal. Other than that, there's not much you can't do by using desktop IE.
The problem with the tablet interface is it limits the apps I can use, sure I can snap two (or three), apps side by side, but I do not want snapped apps when I work inside outlook/word/IE, I have all three open with lots of windows of each app in there respected location, Windows was designed that way from Windows 1.0 to Windows now (Desktop Side), I like the metro/modern UI for tablet apps, but when I want productivity apps, I want to open several apps...
So I use windows desktop calc and word all the time, if they were metro/modern apps yes I could snap them side by side, but then loose what is happening in the background with outlook, time, ie, etc... (Drives me nuts, I want to change what is happening in the xbox music app, I have to switch full screen to that app, modify it, then snap back to the desktop, if they would have stuck with windows being a windows manager, then xbox music could be an app resized on the desktop, this is what they keep saying they are changing for Windows 8.2/9)
Remember their design was a hybrid, when used like a tablet, it acts like a tablet, when used like a laptop is should act like a laptop. This is the market they designed these for, their commercials do not show it (fancy music, dancing, and clicking keyboards)...
neo158
Active member
- Oct 6, 2011
- 2,722
- 1
- 36
While I see what you're talking about it seems that you don't understand the difference between Windows RT and Windows. Windows RT is for ARM based tablets, consumption devices like the iPad. Windows is designed for x86/x64, content creation devices like Surface Pro 3.
Why do I say this, people seem to be under the distinct impression that Windows 9 removes the desktop and that isn't the case. The desktop is staying in Windows 9 and the desktop is being removed in Windows RT 9.
It sounds to me that you are looking for a full Windows experience from a Windows RT tablet when a full x86/x64 Windows tablet would suit you better.
Last edited:
a5cent
New member
- Nov 3, 2011
- 6,622
- 0
- 0
The fact that the desktop exists at all on Windows RT is not a result of deliberate design, but simply a consequence of desktop availability being the only way MS could include Office as part of the Surface RT bundle. If MS had all the infrastructure in place and been ready to launch metro Office at the time, you would never have seen the desktop on Windows RT. This is simply a result of technical and economic limitations, nothing more.
The hybrid devices you refer to are not based on Windows RT. If you want a real hybrid design, with fully accessible desktop and metro environments, then that is what the convertables running plain old Windows are for, where you have high performance Intel Core (more ultrabook like) or battery-life optimized Intel Atom (more tablet like) variants to chose from.
Windows RT was a pseudo-hybrid design out of necessity, not choice. IMHO the fact that you consider the remnants of the desktop an important feature suggests to me that your future upgrade path will lead you away from MS' tablet OS and more towards a Windows convertable, where you will continue to have all the options you desire.
I disagree, you would not create a tablet that can use a full functioning keyboard (touch or type), include office, if it was not meant to have a desktop experience?
I understand you have a right to your opinion, but this is my understanding watch the original surface rt keynote (Microsoft Surface - the new Windows 8 tablet -- Announcement Presentation (FULL) - YouTube) seems they are showing both in their design...
I agree to disagree, if you watch the keynote, they included office, they included a keyboard/mouse input, they talk about connecting to printers, they talk about long flights with watching movies and producing content. If it was just for a consumption device they would have never allowed a keyboard/mouse to interact, they created a hybrid device that can be a tablet and a laptop... I wanted a laptop/tablet replacement for my old Windows XP laptop, the surface RT 64G has surpassed my expectations, (came with office), I did not want to get a surface pro (run IE and get malware and viruses), I get the best of both worlds...
No, the fact that Windows RT and Metro are failures will lead everyone towards Windows convertibles in the future, regardless of what they want. MSFT forced the Windows Phone UI and framework (Metro and WinRT API) onto its popular products (Desktop Windows and Win32) in an attempt to boost Windows Phone. It was a devastating failure which cost MSFT its CEO, billions of $$$ in losses, billions of $$$ in losses from the buyout of Nokia, and untold billions of $$$ in the future from reduced interest in the general Windows community.
neo158
Active member
- Oct 6, 2011
- 2,722
- 1
- 36
The iPad can use a full functioning Bluetooth keyboard and has a touch based version of Office, does that have a desktop?
I don't understand the insistence on having a desktop on an ARM tablet. It simply isn't needed, as demonstrated by the iPad and the fact that Surface 2 doesn't ship with a keyboard included. Your requirements are different to others, so why go for an ARM based device instead of a full Windows device like Surface Pro 3.
I think that a lot of this is mind-set i.e. It's Windows so it MUST have a desktop.
fatclue_98
Retired Moderator
- Apr 1, 2012
- 9,146
- 1
- 38
I got your back John. I was under the impression that RT would be a scaled down version of Windows minus the .exe functions. Without any apps to offer, what's there to dissuade customers from getting an iPad or Android tablet?
a5cent
New member
- Nov 3, 2011
- 6,622
- 0
- 0
I have no idea why you think you are disagreeing with me. :wink:
I'm fully aware of what RT is and how it was built. I'm aware of everything mentioned in the keynote you linked to. That was two years ago however. We're past that. Like I said, the design MS arrived at for RT was more a result of technical and economical limitations than anything else. At one point, MS probably even hoped/thought that the pseudo-hybrid approach RT used would be their official and final take on their tablet OS. It just didn't turn out that way. That was then. Tomorrow is different.
I am talking about the future (and I think Neo is too), which is why I feel that your post doesn't address any of the points I made. I do occasionally refer to RT, but I'm using it only as a basis with which to explain how MS' tablet OS will change going forward. MS' future tablet OS won't have a desktop, but the resulting user experience won't be as different as you likely imagine it would be. To me it seems as if you and a few others are incapable of imagining that Office could ever run on anything other than the desktop, or that it's entirely unthinkable that we may plug a keyboard and mouse into a device without a desktop. I know none of you are that unimaginative, but that is how it comes across, at least to me.
Yeah, it's likely you're in the same boat as John. Your impression is correct of course. Yes, RT is a scaled down version of Windows, or more precisely, it's exactly Windows with an added restriction that prevents it from running 3rd party desktop software (3rd party exe files). Neither I nor Neo have said otherwise, but it sounds like you think we did.
fatclue_98
Retired Moderator
- Apr 1, 2012
- 9,146
- 1
- 38
Neo suggested why have an ARM based tablet if desktop is a need. That's the point. Without the desktop, what does RT offer besides a dearth of apps?
Sent from my LG G3 via Tapatalk
a5cent
New member
- Nov 3, 2011
- 6,622
- 0
- 0
Wouldn't it be more precise to ask:
"Without the RT versions of Office, Notepad and File Manager, what does RT offer besides a dearth of apps?"
I suspect that is your point, which I agree with. I just don't agree with the way you are making it. Why? Because your statement makes it sound like the desktop is the core value proposition of RT, when it just isn't. The desktop on RT exists for compatibility reasons only, and it's not an intrinsic part of what makes Office or the File Manager function. The desktop is a Window Manager and Program Launcher. Nothing more. IMHO the correct way to think about the desktop is as a tool that addresses a set of needs. Nobody needs the desktop itself. Any such statement is really just a shorthand way of saying that one has needs that the desktop addresses, but that doesn't really say what your needs actually are.
If what you need is a fully functional version of Office, then you don't need the desktop for that. Yes, as metro/touch Office doesn't yet exist, Windows RT does require Win32 and the desktop for Office compatibility, but that is just the current situation. Metro/touch Office will not require the desktop. I don't know if metro/touch Office will be just as powerful as the current desktop version, but there is nothing technical that would prevent it.
If what you need is a fully functional file manager, then you don't need the desktop for that either. Threshold is rumoured to include a fully functional metro/touch file manger that will be just as powerful was the current desktop version.
I'd say that 90% of the time, those two things are the reasons why people say they need the desktop, when that isn't correct.
John Steffes mentioned that he finds the metro snapping feature too limited, and that (at least in some situations) he prefers the window based desktop paradigm, but that is not where the next version of Microsoft's tablet OS is headed. That is why he'll likely be better served with a computing device where both metro and the desktop environments are fully available. On the other hand, if MS' next tablet OS includes fully functional versions of touch/metro Office and the file manager, and also upgrades the snapping feature, that may also be a viable option. It depends on many things! What it really doesn't depend on is whether the desktop remains part of the tablet OS or not, and that is my point.
If I'm still not explaining this well enough, then I give up :sweaty:
fatclue_98
Retired Moderator
- Apr 1, 2012
- 9,146
- 1
- 38
As I mentioned in an earlier post, desktop IE is a vital component that makes up for a lot of missing apps. You're right, you don't need desktop to have Office or file managers. But you can't have Outlook without it. Mail is a fine client but it is very rudimentary and not exactly enterprise-grade.
Without apps, RT doesn't have anything to compete against iOS or Android. The tipping point, what keeps them in the ball game, is desktop IE and Outlook. N-Trig or Wacom support would be a real game changer for the platform.
Without apps, RT doesn't have anything to compete against iOS or Android. The tipping point, what keeps them in the ball game, is desktop IE and Outlook. N-Trig or Wacom support would be a real game changer for the platform.
The bigger issues is the unknowns, yes, I use the Surface RT 64G like a laptop (using the Desktop), I use the same device as a tablet, I understand windows threshold might change that, I think that is a mistake, I understand they had a marketing issue, but they want one Windows not fifty (I understand Windows RT is just Windows complied on ARM [WOA]), just in case I need to mention I have been working on Windows since version 3 (being my Zenith SuperSport, running DOS 6.22 [it started with Zenith DOS and Windows 2.x]). My first tablet was a HP (Palm) Touchpad, and it had a Bluetooth keyboard and QuickOffice and Picel Office, I have Android devices (got my kids NEXTBOOKS), I have Windows devices from Compaq Aero 4/33c's to Compaq Armada, to Acer Aspires to Lenovo Thinkpad (my work device). For a living I work on Server devices (Windows/Linux/VMWare) etc...
I understand Windows very well, Microsoft is in a pickle I know they want to change yet again the Windows Interface [from DOS Executive, to Program Manager, to Start Menu, to Metro/Modern], Metro/Modern UI did not work just like the ribbon bar did not work in Office 2007, so they combined the ribbon bar and the file menu system in Office 2010. Now Windows threshold wants to combine Windows 7 UI with Windows 8 UI and like the office counter part see if it will run and be accepted by the masses.
The issue is Windows is known as a fancy Window Manager, that is what it was, that is what it should be, I understand WOA is to be stripped down and not run x86, that does not mean others can't re-compile their apps for ARM (that is a Microsoft requirement that it has to be a metro/modern app), it is not because ARM can not run other apps.
Microsoft might want to change and create a tablet only experience, I am fine with that, just do not change what we use today to what some want, and others don't, otherwise you will have people like me who want the desktop stay with Windows RT 8.1 just like there are tons who are staying with Windows 7 because they do not want to re-train their employees on Windows 8/8.1 [I am not debating on if one is better then another]. The issue is I want a desktop, you and others do not want a desktop, I am fine with you not wanting a desktop, but I do. Windows as a Windows Manager is what I want, nothing more, nothing less. Microsoft can do what they want with new devices, but some of us got used to using Windows like Windows, they have suggested they should have not called it Windows RT, they have suggested they do not want three OSes, I want my Windows RT to stay the way it is/was designed...
I understand Windows very well, Microsoft is in a pickle I know they want to change yet again the Windows Interface [from DOS Executive, to Program Manager, to Start Menu, to Metro/Modern], Metro/Modern UI did not work just like the ribbon bar did not work in Office 2007, so they combined the ribbon bar and the file menu system in Office 2010. Now Windows threshold wants to combine Windows 7 UI with Windows 8 UI and like the office counter part see if it will run and be accepted by the masses.
The issue is Windows is known as a fancy Window Manager, that is what it was, that is what it should be, I understand WOA is to be stripped down and not run x86, that does not mean others can't re-compile their apps for ARM (that is a Microsoft requirement that it has to be a metro/modern app), it is not because ARM can not run other apps.
Microsoft might want to change and create a tablet only experience, I am fine with that, just do not change what we use today to what some want, and others don't, otherwise you will have people like me who want the desktop stay with Windows RT 8.1 just like there are tons who are staying with Windows 7 because they do not want to re-train their employees on Windows 8/8.1 [I am not debating on if one is better then another]. The issue is I want a desktop, you and others do not want a desktop, I am fine with you not wanting a desktop, but I do. Windows as a Windows Manager is what I want, nothing more, nothing less. Microsoft can do what they want with new devices, but some of us got used to using Windows like Windows, they have suggested they should have not called it Windows RT, they have suggested they do not want three OSes, I want my Windows RT to stay the way it is/was designed...
Last edited:
Philip Hamm
New member
- Jul 28, 2014
- 249
- 0
- 0
Until very recently, Intel based tablets with full Win32 capabilities were much more expensive and with significantly worse battery life than ARM based Windows tablet.
godse573
New member
- May 9, 2014
- 87
- 0
- 0
In its current form, desktop mode for windows rt is undoubtedly what keeps it afloat and what made Microsoft make a surface 2 and not kill it at one. Sure, it may be gone here in a year or two, but not forgotten necessarily. I have a surface 2 rt, for which I do all of my daily tasks on and use for leisure. I purchased it because there is no need to get a full windows devise that is much more open to viruses and malware than the rt platform. If I have no NEED to go off the beaten path, then there is no NEED to get a devise that will do that. I use my S2 for browsing the internet, typing word documents, listening to Spotify; just simple basic tasks, everything else is leisure.
My next topic is about why desktop mode is on rt, and how useful it actually is. What I want to stress is why Microsoft is selling this, and who it is aimed for. The majority of their original advertising campaign was focused completely on the average student user, of whom I am. They made it for students to easily take notes via OneNote or word, which is obviously evident. Secondly, the average "take notes and write essays" kind of student would find this devise extremely useful when up against big and heavy laptop equivalents which in most cases cost more and are more vulnerable to viruses etc. What I'm really trying to get at is that the desktop mode for the Windows rt platform was made to simulate having a real PC, with the added bonus of its size, weight, battery life, and price. Now you can argue that the RT platformed tablets are still kinda pricey, but in reality you get what you pay for. What I payed for was a devise that will help me in my educational endeavors, for a small amount of money, in a small package, simulating the big idea of a full blown windows devise. Take this as a grain of salt, but desktop mode is way more than meets the eye, especially when you use it as your daily driver. Sure, I would like to have x64/x86 .exe capabilities and be able to run my own programs, that would be nice. But do I need it, not at all. For the mass majority of people that use a computer for its basic functions, rt is what should be running the show. Come to think of it, the only .exe programs I used before and would maybe like to have are Photoshop and Movie Maker. But even then, I don't NEED to use them, which renders them useless. I have an email client, a web browser, a document writer, and a file manager, all in the convenience of one central location: The old familiar Windows desktop.
My next topic is about why desktop mode is on rt, and how useful it actually is. What I want to stress is why Microsoft is selling this, and who it is aimed for. The majority of their original advertising campaign was focused completely on the average student user, of whom I am. They made it for students to easily take notes via OneNote or word, which is obviously evident. Secondly, the average "take notes and write essays" kind of student would find this devise extremely useful when up against big and heavy laptop equivalents which in most cases cost more and are more vulnerable to viruses etc. What I'm really trying to get at is that the desktop mode for the Windows rt platform was made to simulate having a real PC, with the added bonus of its size, weight, battery life, and price. Now you can argue that the RT platformed tablets are still kinda pricey, but in reality you get what you pay for. What I payed for was a devise that will help me in my educational endeavors, for a small amount of money, in a small package, simulating the big idea of a full blown windows devise. Take this as a grain of salt, but desktop mode is way more than meets the eye, especially when you use it as your daily driver. Sure, I would like to have x64/x86 .exe capabilities and be able to run my own programs, that would be nice. But do I need it, not at all. For the mass majority of people that use a computer for its basic functions, rt is what should be running the show. Come to think of it, the only .exe programs I used before and would maybe like to have are Photoshop and Movie Maker. But even then, I don't NEED to use them, which renders them useless. I have an email client, a web browser, a document writer, and a file manager, all in the convenience of one central location: The old familiar Windows desktop.
a5cent
New member
- Nov 3, 2011
- 6,622
- 0
- 0
Absolutely. I don't think the ARM vs x86 debate really belongs here. It just ads to the confusion. MS could just as well compile Windows RT for x86 to allow for Atom based RT tablets. That wouldn't change anything about the abilities and restrictions of Windows RT itself. It still wouldn't run desktop software.
I'm not sure if you are directing the above at me. I don't use tablets and have no intention to anytime soon. I'm more interested in where MS is headed than I am interested in what any one of us may or may not want.
I agree that MS can't afford to provide OS upgrades to Windows RT users that some come to perceive as a downgrade. However, up until your last post I felt that the desktop's window management and app launching features were completely irrelevant for RT. I felt that the desktop serves no purpose other than to provide compatibility to Win32 based software that MS had not yet been able to fully port over to the WinRT API.
If enough people share your view, that desktop window management is a central feature of Windows RT, then removing the desktop really would be akin to MS shooting themselves in the foot. If that group is large enough, then MS would do well to not provide RT updates, or at least not provide full updates to the newest W9 tablet OS. MS could still opt to update only specific subsystems however, like the newest WinRT runtime and API.
I'm back to being unsure about what MS is likely to do on the Windows RT update front.
Similar threads
Trending Posts
-
Post pictures of your latest purchase- Started by Laura Knotek
- Replies: 3K
-
Blu Win Jr. LTE Windows Phone 8.1 Redux
- Started by ChrysatusAuratus
- Replies: 0
-
How to pare down the length of the file explorer context menu in Windows 10- Started by musicollector
- Replies: 0
-
Members online
No members online now.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram