How is W10m different than WRT?

[CJ Thunder]

I don?t mean backend, UX, or UI wise, I mean ideologically.With W10m on small tablets, built on the same onecore, and only running storeapps with no desktop, how is W10m different than WRT? What is MS? plan forW10m getting more adoption than WRT when they have basically the same featuresand drawbacks?

This isn't doom and gloom, I just see the same thing, and I want more input.

 

[PepperdotNet]

Also it brings the question: Why the crippled and dead end Windows RT on those existing devices, when they could run an up to date Windows 10 Mobile?

 

[Juan Rosado Casanova]

I have read that Microsoft is now working on a Windows 10RT... Yes I agree that if they are going to leave RT in the dark they should at least flash Mobile to RT devices.

 

[CJ Thunder]

But my point is, what's the point? What are MS' goals? How will this be different?

 

[Juan Rosado Casanova]

From what I have read the older devices using RT versions would not upgrade because of thier ARM chipsets but now that an RT version of Win10 would bring them up to date with everyone else. I guess MS just wants to keep as many people up to date as possible so as not to loose anyone to iOS or Android.

 

[EspHack]

I though they buried RT with some start menu update nonsense which installs them the legacy start menu style, which is absurd for tablets, to me it looked like a spit on the face of their supporters

I think w10m will fade out just like rt, Microsoft phones will become x86, just like the surface 2 > 3 transition, and that will be it, mobile war is over, this is the new thing, cant compare surface to ipad, same will apply here

 

[DT_17]

Somedays ago read on Windows Central MS to make a Windows 10 ARM (full w10) version as Well a Windows 10 mobile x86 version (Surface Phone), so maybe the Windows 10 ARM version will be applied to Small Tablet soon?

 

[Kimmo Toivanen]

W10M - Windows 10 running on ARM, small (phone), medium (tablet) or big (Continuum) UI. Not too much different than W10 IOT on Raspberry One core, one store, one UWP API. Features are different between device classes.

WRT (Surface 2) - dead end by Microsoft decision. They could invest time in porting W10M to Tegra, but they chose not to.

The ideology between them IS core and store. It is not common to use desktop apps on small tablets or phones. They are better with big screen, keyboard and mouse. XBOX has x86 inside, but very few would expect it to run desktop apps?

 

[a5cent]

I don’t mean backend, UX, or UI wise, I mean ideologically.With W10m on small tablets, built on the same onecore, and only running storeapps with no desktop, how is W10m different than WRT? What is MS’ plan forW10m getting more adoption than WRT when they have basically the same featuresand drawbacks?

This isn't doom and gloom, I just see the same thing, and I want more input.

The major difference is efficiency and the cost of the targeted hardware.

RT required hardware that could (with the exception of the instruction set) technically run full blown Windows. Just installing RT would occupy 9GB in storage. That's more than the majority of devices have that are targeted by W10M, which isn't even a third of that size.

RT would never have been able to compete with low cost Android tablets, as its hardware requirements are simply too steep. That's the role W10M fulfills... bringing the Windows ecosystem, and particularly the UWP, down to very cheap hardware.

W10M is not the successor to RT. W10M is the successor to WP. RT and W10M definitely don't have the same features and drawbacks. You are fundamentally overlooking something if that is your view. Hardware requirements, W10M being accessible to OEMs at no cost and W10M having access to a unified store are just some of many major differences.

 

[CJ Thunder]

Rt had access to the store, the developer had to make a few changes to run on arm though, just like running on mobile. Coding vs design though, mainly. I guess I'm just nervous as they are so close with functions, and market share that I see a similar fate.

 

[a5cent]

Rt had access to the store, the developer had to make a few changes to run on arm though, just like running on mobile. Coding vs design though, mainly. I guess I'm just nervous as they are so close with functions, and market share that I see a similar fate.

To run on ARM? No. No changes required whatsoever, at least not compared to the same .NET based app running on an x86 based laptop.

RT had access to a store, but it didn't (and still doesn't) have access to the unified store. That is a huge difference. The way RT apps ran in a second environment that seemed completely foreign to a Windows computer (and frustrated many consumers and baffled reviewers) is another huge difference. As a result, W10 has made running apps a far more palatable proposition than they ever were on RT. MS hopes that will result in more consumer demand, which always translates into more developer attention, which will someday possibly filter down to W10M as well (at least that's the idea).

I'm not saying W10M is guaranteed success. Far from it. I am saying that the differences between W10M and RT are huge, primarily because both OSes were designed, from the outset, to address very different needs and markets. Throw in the UWP and I'm not sure how you could view both as being the same at all.

I think you're looking at both OSes from 10'000 feet. There's nothing wrong with that, except that from so far away, pretty much any two touch based OSes would look identical.

 

[CJ Thunder]

That's what I meant, the second sentence that listed the changes on either side. It does take work for a dev to "port" to each of the "one core" platforms.
Anyway, I'm not interested in devs at first, I'm interested in MS because their interest and devotion and ad dollars and marketing strategy for this market is what brings the devs, but it just seems too close to what Rt was, w10m to Rt.

 

[a5cent]

I'm interested in MS because their interest and devotion and ad dollars and marketing strategy for this market is what brings the devs, but it just seems too close to what Rt was, w10m to Rt.

The only thing that convinces devs to develop for a platform is profit potential. None of the things you mentioned directly impacts profit potential in any way. The size of the user base with disposable income is the main factor that determines profit potential.
Consumers are spending three times more money in the W10 store than was being spent while RT peaked. I'll let others,decide if that's huge or too little, but it is at least a very notable difference.

 

[CJ Thunder]

Very true.
But profit isn't a got it and done game. It also depends on company and quickness of talent to continue with a platform or if they can cross platform things. Plenty goes into it...

But I want to go back to the main point... What was/is the cost of Rt vs m on a device?

 

[constantreader16]

I think the difference is potential for the experience. While RT gave you a mobile styled OS, W10M has the potential to give you desktop functionally via Continuum. The OneCore and UWP ideologies should allow the devices to be more flexible and have much broader functionality.

Add on the rumored x86 support coming to W10M and you end up with a mobile OS that actually has potential to run your full blown desktop too.

The idea behind the design is totally different. RT was trying to be an Android and iOS competitor (and be on the same functional level) while trying to still be Windows sort of, while W10M is trying to be full blown Windows and scale you down to a 4-9" screen.

 

[davidsunsbk]

Internally they have different structures for the apps which is the point of UWP.

 

[a5cent]

But profit isn't a got it and done game.

In terms of developer interest it very much is! It's all that matters.

It also depends on company and quickness of talent to continue with a platform or if they can cross platform things. Plenty goes into it...

Not necessarily. Apple is none of those things and they are the only company in the smartphone market that is raking in the dough.

But I want to go back to the main point... What was/is the cost of Rt vs m on a device?

I doubt anybody can give you a number in dollars, but it's easy to verify that the hardware requirements for W10M are still notably lower than they ever were for RT. If an OEM can manufacture a device $10 cheaper and sell 2 million of them at the same price, then that's an extra 20 million in the OEMs pocket. On the other hand, if an OEM wants to manufacture a cheap windows tablet that competes on price, but can't build the device at a cost that is competitive with the cheapest Android tablets (because the minimal hardware requirements make the device too expensive), then such a tablet will never be built and offered to consumers. That was RT's problem, and it's the problem that W10M (as a tablet OS) solves.

You're right that this doesn't guarantee W10M's success, but that's at least better than RT which as an OS was guaranteed to fail in that market segment.

I'd say the difference between guaranteed failure and a possibility for success is huge. That's my point.

 

[CJ Thunder]

Good stuff.
It is interesting that MS wanted to combine it all, because it's an interesting point that numbers sold osx is on less devices than wp/w10m...
But MS is being attacked on all sides. Cloud, amazon, mobile, google/apple, office, google.
MS is an amazing company but it will be interesting to see how this all plays out.