What is the point of Windows RT When Tablets can Run Full Windows 8 ???

Ridemyscooter86

New member
Dec 20, 2011
257
0
0
Visit site
My main theory for windows RT, and it sounds funny, was to give intel a kick in the right direction. Up until clover trail, the atoms had bad performance, ok battery life, but mainly the performance sucked. Once ARM got popular and iOS and android were using a ton of ARM processors, it became apparent that windows 7 was too big. That is why windows 8 and intel atoms run so well now. Intel increased the battery life and performance of the atoms and Microsoft increased the performance of its OS. These make windows 8 tablets on atoms run just fine.
Before people say this is crazy, remember that like 3 years ago apple did the exact same thing to intel as well. Intel always made ulv processors for ultraportable laptops but up until the air, they never got super big. Once the air came out with the ulv core 2 duo processors, intel started improving their ulv processors drastically. The core i series, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd gen ulv processors have all had major improvements with each generation.

The second major reason for RT is to gain a foothold in arm. The scary thing about the tablet market/PC market in general is that no one really knows which way it will go. Intel is still the king overall because of notebooks and desktops, but tablets are gaining traction very quickly and ARM has overwhelmingly dominant marketshare on tablets. Tablets will eventually take over PC sales. This is a fact, they will do to notebooks what notebooks did to desktops...sure notebooks and desktops will still always be around, but many consumers now for their general purpose needs are starting to buy more and more tablets. Especially with windows 8 thrown into the mix, tablets can replace standard computers as a primary device. So if the market does switch to ARM, Microsoft can be prepared.

RT really has the major problem of its price being too expensive. Remember, that while RT right now isn't necessarily as much of a direct comparison to android and iOS, it is gaining apps quickly. For RT really to succeed, they need to have 200-300$ tablets. Right now, windows 8 is better seeing as one can purchase a windows 8 atom tablet for 500$ which can do so much more than an iPAD or android. RT does have full office, however, which does give it a huge leg up on android and iOS but with the price and apps, its not as much of a viable competitor to ipads or android. what Microsoft needs to do quickly is to make a 7" tablet with RT for 200-250$, maybe 300$ at most and they will sell like hotcakes. Why do you think apple made the ipad mini? Because 7" tablets are very popular. Once Microsoft does this, RT will be viable again. I think you will need to wait a generation to see this though, so about a year.
 

kittshelby

New member
Dec 29, 2011
129
0
0
Visit site
At least for me, the reasons to buy RT (especially the Surface RT) over full Windows 8 tablets are:

- thinner, lighter, sexier
- much longer battery life
- free Microsoft Office 2013
- may be cheaper

However, if manufacturers can make their Windows 8 tablets thinner, lighter, and have a full days battery life, then I may consider buying a full Windows 8 tablet.
 

SlayerSpecial

New member
Nov 19, 2011
7
0
0
Visit site
My reasons for choosing a Surface RT over a Pro: Don't want nor need to install bloating "exe's" on my tablet, since I have a laptop for that; battery lasts twice longer; cheaper; lighter; cooler; touch devices are not, conceptually, suited for desktop UI's.

As a matter of fact even if it cost the same I'd go RT.
 

mparker

New member
Jan 13, 2011
352
0
0
Visit site
Windows RT means that Microsoft is no longer tethered to Intel's hip. It's a huge deal, because now it doesn't actually matter in the slightest which hardware is superior, they can use either ARM or x86/64.
Windows has never been tethered to Intel's hip. Windows NT was originally written for the MIPS R3000 then ported to the Intel 386 and DEC Alpha at launch, and was later ported to the Intel Itanium as well. ARM is just continuing in the grand tradition.


The app framework for all future programs, WinRT, is largely platform agnostic.
Win32 is also platform agnostic - you just have to tell Dev Studio that you want the program to run on the various architectures. At one time I was a developer on an application that we shipped for DEC Alpha and Intel x86.
 

jhoff80

New member
Apr 27, 2003
1,415
0
0
Visit site
Windows has never been tethered to Intel's hip. Windows NT was originally written for the MIPS R3000 then ported to the Intel 386 and DEC Alpha at launch, and was later ported to the Intel Itanium as well. ARM is just continuing in the grand tradition.

For the consumer version (aka the version most widely used in the marketplace)? Sure they have. They don't call it "Wintel" for no reason.

Win32 is also platform agnostic - you just have to tell Dev Studio that you want the program to run on the various architectures. At one time I was a developer on an application that we shipped for DEC Alpha and Intel x86.

You could do it that way in Visual Studio in the past, but now it's much more firmly 'encouraged'.
 

berty6294

New member
Oct 5, 2012
3,336
1
0
Visit site
For the consumer version (aka the version most widely used in the marketplace)? Sure they have. They don't call it "Wintel" for no reason

I have never heard anybody call them "Wintel" lol but I think the reason is that ARM is much stronger now. It started as a mobile processor, now its being used in tablets, next you will see it in the personal computer market! ARM is the future.
 

jaimeastin

New member
Apr 8, 2012
486
0
0
Visit site
My reasons for choosing a Surface RT over a Pro: Don't want nor need to install bloating "exe's" on my tablet, since I have a laptop for that; battery lasts twice longer; cheaper; lighter; cooler; touch devices are not, conceptually, suited for desktop UI's.

As a matter of fact even if it cost the same I'd go RT.

pretty much same here.
 

HeyCori

Mod Emeritus
Mar 1, 2011
6,864
68
48
Visit site
I don't think I'm the only one that assumed that RT devices would launch at a much (much) cheaper price point. After all, there was plenty of speculation. Lenovo even stated that RT tablets would cost as low as $300. What did we get instead? The Surface RT launches with a $600 dollar bundle. The Asus VivoTab also launches for $600. And let's not forget the Samsung Ativ and its $600 price tag. Simply put, these are not the prices we're looking for. /jedi

I believe the goal was that Windows RT gives you a gimped version of Windows 8 but at a much lower cost. Unfortunately, that goal has not materialized. I believe the cheapest RT tablet you can get right now is the VivoTab RT for $420 on Amazon. That price tag isn't even remotely close to the Kindle Fire, Nexus, Nook or other low-end Android tablets. A $400-$600 RT tablet leaves a lot to be desired because you don't get full W8 functionality and the app market pales in comparison to the competition. And lets not forget that $600 can buy a decent W8 laptop too.

I have a Surface RT, and I know exactly why I bought one, but I'd have an easier time trying to sell a Windows Phone. Microsoft and OEMs have to lower the price, period. Yeah, many core apps need to be fixed and there needs to be more education on the differences between RT and W8, but the immediate problem (IMO) is cost. Lower the cost, increase RT's market share, more developers will support it, more consumers will buy it. I just don't see anything else that will help as much as lowering the cost.
 

ninjaap

New member
Dec 10, 2008
2,512
2
0
Visit site
I don't think I'm the only one that assumed that RT devices would launch at a much (much) cheaper price point. After all, there was plenty of speculation. Lenovo even stated that RT tablets would cost as low as $300. What did we get instead? The Surface RT launches with a $600 dollar bundle. The Asus VivoTab also launches for $600. And let's not forget the Samsung Ativ and its $600 price tag. Simply put, these are not the prices we're looking for. /jedi

I believe the goal was that Windows RT gives you a gimped version of Windows 8 but at a much lower cost. Unfortunately, that goal has not materialized. I believe the cheapest RT tablet you can get right now is the VivoTab RT for $420 on Amazon. That price tag isn't even remotely close to the Kindle Fire, Nexus, Nook or other low-end Android tablets. A $400-$600 RT tablet leaves a lot to be desired because you don't get full W8 functionality and the app market pales in comparison to the competition. And lets not forget that $600 can buy a decent W8 laptop too.

I have a Surface RT, and I know exactly why I bought one, but I'd have an easier time trying to sell a Windows Phone. Microsoft and OEMs have to lower the price, period. Yeah, many core apps need to be fixed and there needs to be more education on the differences between RT and W8, but the immediate problem (IMO) is cost. Lower the cost, increase RT's market share, more developers will support it, more consumers will buy it. I just don't see anything else that will help as much as lowering the cost.

Well with the recent news (rumor?) that MS is cutting prices on Windows 8, then it stands to reason that Pro devices will get a price cut and so would RT.
 

HeyCori

Mod Emeritus
Mar 1, 2011
6,864
68
48
Visit site
Well with the recent news (rumor?) that MS is cutting prices on Windows 8, then it stands to reason that Pro devices will get a price cut and so would RT.

I really hope so. Microsoft and OEMs are shooting themselves in the foot with these high prices.
 

paulm187

New member
Nov 14, 2010
279
0
0
Visit site
Windows RT future is on cheap 7" tablets based on ARM. Microsoft should kill the desktop in Windows RT. For 10" tablets Intel/AMD SoC hardware, Windows 8 is the future.
 

berty6294

New member
Oct 5, 2012
3,336
1
0
Visit site
Why don't people understand that desktop in RT and 8 are only for the transition. At launch there are more legacy apps than Windows Store apps. Once the Windows Store catalog increases, desktop will be removed and maybe they will sandbox non updated legacy apps! As for RT desktop is there for Office, as soon as Office is updated to the Modern UI feel, desktop will be removed from there. Eventually, RT and 8 will become one with the exception of 8 being able to sandbox legacy apps. THERE WILL BE NO MORE DESKTOP only Start screen! That's the plan, and that's why RT is the future.
 

Ridemyscooter86

New member
Dec 20, 2011
257
0
0
Visit site
Yeah, the desktop totally needs to be ditched in RT. One of the major issues I have with win RT/8 is that many of the options are only able to be changed in the desktop. I know its because MS never got around to it because lets be honest, there are WAY more important things for them to do like improving the core apps like mail, calendar, IE, making the next xbox, office, skydrive, etc...but one of the major gripes I have with windows 8 and RT is that you'll be in the metro settings menu to do something and to get to a more advanced setting it then kicks you into the desktop. I'm sure with the blue updates and windows 9, they will have managed to migrate this all over to the metro interface but this is one of the major complaints I have with them.

Also in reguards to desktop in RT. It seems to me the only reason other than transition was so they did not have to make another entirely new office suite for it. They already made 2013 and if the made metro only versions of word, excel, onenote, and powerpoint it would be another entirely new suite they would have to make in addition to the 2013 suite. Pretty much all they had to do for 2013 on RT was recompile office for ARM and then optimize it. I do think onenote for metro is pretty cool and it does seem like MS is working on making metro versions of office.
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
323,190
Messages
2,243,420
Members
428,034
Latest member
chuffster