Slashdot

●Stories

●Firehose

●All

●Popular

●Polls

●Software

●Thought Leadership

Submit

Search Slashdot

● Login

●or

● Sign up

●Topics:

●Devices

●Build

●Entertainment

●Technology

●Open Source

●Science

●YRO

●Follow us:

●RSS

●Facebook

●LinkedIn

●Twitter

● Youtube

● Mastodon

●Bluesky

Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

Nickname:

Password:

Public Terminal

Forgot your password?
Close

binspam dupe notthebest offtopic slownewsday stale stupid fresh funny insightful interesting maybe offtopic flamebait troll redundant overrated insightful interesting informative funny underrated descriptive typo dupe error

MongoDB Atlas: Multi-cloud, modern database on AWS, Azure, and Google Cloud. Get access to our most high performance version ever, with faster and easier scaling at lower cost.

×

69564193 story

Surface RT Devices Won't Get Windows 10 158

Posted by Soulskill on Friday January 23, 2015 @10:22AM from the take-that-early-adopters dept.

whoever57 writes: In its announcement of Windows 10, Microsoft indicated not all devices would get the updated operating system. Now, Microsoft says its Surface devices running Windows RT won't be receiving full updates, though it does plan to roll some new functionality into them. "Given that Windows RT and RT 8.1 were designed for power economizing devices sporting 32-bit ARM architecture, and never had the same functionality — to many users' frustration — as full-blown Windows 8 and 8.1, it comes as little surprise that the RT versions of the operating system should be left out of the latest update loop. In fact, a week before Microsoft's big Windows 10 reveal on January 21, the company released firmware updates for all three models of its Intel-powered Surface Pro series, but neither of the ARM-based Surface tablets — the Surface 2 or Surface RT — received any new updates this month." The Surface Pro line of tablets, which run a normal version of Windows, will be getting an update to Windows 10.

←

You may like to read:

→

Rare Astronomical Event Will See Triple Moon Shadows On Jupiter

Meta Says Llama 4 Targets Left-Leaning Bias

Americans' Junk-Filled Garages Are Hurting EV Adoption, Study Says

Mexico Threatens To Sue Google Over Gulf Renaming

Americans are Buying Twice as Many Hybrids as Fully Electric Vehicles. Is The Next Step Synthetic Fuels?

EV Sales Keep Growing In the US, Represent 20% of Global Car Sales and Half in China

Submission: Microsoft orphans Surface RT devices.

Data Encryption On the Rise In the Cloud and Mobile

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Surface RT Devices Won't Get Windows 10 More Login

Surface RT Devices Won't Get Windows 10

Load All Comments

Full Abbreviated Hidden

/Sea

Score:

5

4

3

2

1

0

-1

More Login

Nickname:

Password:

Public Terminal

Forgot your password?
Close

Close

Search 158 Comments Log In/Create an Account

Comments Filter:

● All

● Insightful

● Informative

● Interesting

● Funny

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Translation: (Score:5, Insightful)

byViol8 ( 599362 ) writes: on Friday January 23, 2015 @10:24AM (#48884601) Homepage

"We're dumping RT"

Share
twitter facebook

Re:Translation: (Score:4, Informative)

byjandrese ( 485 ) writes: <kensama@vt.edu> on Friday January 23, 2015 @10:37AM (#48884717) Homepage Journal

Surface RT was always a bastard child of the lineup. They sold pretty poorly too, so it's not a surprise that Microsoft is wiping their hands of the whole product.

Parent Share
twitter facebook

Re: (Score:2)

byRob Y. ( 110975 ) writes:

Surface RT always felt like Microsoft actually believing the hype that they convinced stupid media outlets to spew. You know, Metro is the future - all apps will be Metro apps because it's so 'modern'. Well, it turned out that for the most part, the web is the future for the kind of apps that made Windows dominant. Metro apps compete with iOS and Android apps - i.e. simple one-screen apps that work well with a touch interface. They do not compete with web apps, and even less with traditional desktop app

Re:Translation: (Score:4, Informative)

bybmajik ( 96670 ) writes: <matt@mattevans.org> on Friday January 23, 2015 @12:19PM (#48885689) Homepage Journal

RT has desktop mode.
It's patently untrue that the web is the future for "the kinds of apps that made windows dominant"
Actually, windows was dominant for every kind of app. The growth in apps of all sectors - LOB, entertainment, etc -- is on devices, and people regularly pan device apps that are just thin shells around a browser control.
People want native apps on their devices. MDD (multi-device-development) is something enterprise is very interested in -- they need to deal with a BYOD workforce, and they always want to economize on IT spend.
If it had been feasible to make Win32 apps run well on ARM, don't you think we would have done that?
The most insightful thing you wrote is this:
"But yes, Intel hasn't been asleep, and ARM is no longer as much of a requirement for mobile devices"
Consider the following -- and note that while I work at MS, I am neither privy to, nor attempting to disclose -- any high level strategy
1) Microsoft delivers a lot of value to enterprise customers because of app compat
2) think back a few years at what the CPU landscape looked like -- think about the power consumption of Intel's offerings. Remember, there was no ATOM yet.
3) app compat, battery life, performance -- if you don't have a low-power native x86 processor, you can only get two of these at a time.
4) Enterprise customers want all three
5) Intel, years ago, didn't appear to have any intention to deliver a low-cost, low power x86 part
6) this meant that MS would be unable to deliver low cost, new form factor mobile devices that could still run legacy software
7) this would force a wedge between new form factors and the Microsoft platform advantages (great compatability)
Clearly, what needed to happen is that something had to convince intel to develop a low cost, low power, good performing x86 chip
Based on 20+ years history, considering ARM, AMD, dec Alpha, etc, what makes intel innovate well and do its best work?
A credible marketplace threat to Wintel.
Claim: The purpose of Windows+ARM was to force intel to develop a low-power, low-cost x86 chip. If Windows+ARM took off in its own right, great. But the main purpose has been to secure a $99 x86 windows tablet -- which means that enterprises have the price points and form factors they want, and the app compat they need.
Exhibit A:
http://www.amazon.com/HP-Strea... [amazon.com]
I happen to like my RT tablet -- but the Surface Pro is a credible do-it-all device, and now software that runs on the Pro is the same software that runs on your $99 HP tablet and your $4999 gaming rig.
Back when windows+ARM started, the intel hardware to allow that continuum didn't exist.
As I said -- nobody at MS tells me how things really go down. But this is a high stakes game. The people at MS aren't stupid.

Parent Share
twitter facebook

Re: (Score:3)

bypetermgreen ( 876956 ) writes:

RT has desktop mode.
AIUI the original plan was not to have it at all but they couldn't get office converted to metro in time so they included the desktop mode but crippled it by forbidding desktop apps other than the handful bundled with the OS (a cut down version of office, some of the built in windows tools).
The only reason I can see for crippling the desktop mode on the arm port was pushing developers to switch to metro.
Would windows on arm have succeeded if people could just recompile their software for it rather than havi

Re:Translation: no (Score:2)

byjbolden ( 176878 ) writes:

No they are continuing to make phones and likely tablets with long battery life. But they aren't going to be on as long an upgrade cycle as computers.

Re: (Score:2)

bymaorb ( 2578043 ) writes:

It's not like the Windows RT based devices are losing out. Their primary limitation is the inability to install desktop apps in the first place, and almost all of the changes in Windows 10 are focused on making the desktop UI usable again. Let's take a look at some of the changes, shall we?
-Intelligently starting up to the desktop UI instead of the silly Windows 8/8.1 UI doesn't help. (MS Office and IE10/11 are the only commonly used programs you might use in the Desktop UI, everything else is an app)
-The n

Re: (Score:2)

bydanbob999 ( 2490674 ) writes:

It's worse than that. We can bet no one will develop for Win RT and everyone will target Windows 10 instead. It's worst than Android/iPad tablets not being updated because most Android applications are compatible with devices as far as version 2.2/2.3 or 4.0 in the worst case and the same goes for iOS.

Windows + ARM = sunk cash (Score:2)

byunixisc ( 2429386 ) writes:

That makes sense. RT - Windows on ARM - made even less sense than other NT on RISC platforms in the past. At that time, there was at least a rationale of running NT on more powerful CPUs than Pentiums, or getting Silicon Graphics software on the platform via that route.
But Windows on ARM never made sense. As it is, for the tablet market, both iOS and Android are well entrenched, and for anyone to even consider Windows there, it would have to offer a strong reason to do it. That strong reason would be

Re:Translation: (Score:5, Insightful)

byfuzzyfuzzyfungus ( 1223518 ) writes: on Friday January 23, 2015 @10:42AM (#48884759) Journal

That isn't strictly true, unless you ignore the fact that x86s are available(what they'd cost if Intel weren't attempting to buy marketshare might be less exciting) at more or less the same power envelope as the punchier ARM SoCs. They still have nothing on the low end of what ARM can do; but that hardly matters for phones and tablets.

Windows/x86 devices are pretty common in similar sizes and prices to Android or iOS on ARM(and, actually, some Android/x86 devices are virtually indistinguishable from a Windows/x86 device from the same vendor until powered up). There is also still the more-or-less-complete-NT; but somewhat different UI and application layer in WP8, which isn't being axed.

I'm not sure why anyone would mourn the worthless abortion that was Windows RT. All the cruft of full Win8(more, in fact, since the 'WIMBoot' feature never made it over there), including a full desktop because they couldn't be bothered to port Office to their own new UI; but with pointless cryptographic lockdown to the wonderful world of a mostly impoverished app store. All with the mediocrity of a Tegra3, and at relatively modest savings over a real computer! What's not to love?

If they actually wanted to have a go at making NT multi-architecture again, that'd be one thing; but taking pretty much all of Windows 8, then gimping it just because you have a hard-on for Apple's app store success? An idea that stupid deserves death.

Parent Share
twitter facebook

Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

byaccount_deleted ( 4530225 ) writes:

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re: (Score:2)

byADRA ( 37398 ) writes:

Who cares about architecture when the OS platform and the development tooling around them are becoming more relevant? Android uses Java for almost everything, and IOS has its own toolchains that aren't portable, so the real problem is that the mobile development experience is largely siloed.
The only Android X86 product I've used is Nexus Player, which works fine for at least the cases that I use it on, and the few programs I've used from the side-loaded Android world work fine (it also has some form of ARM

For the "netbook" crowd (Score:3)

bytepples ( 727027 ) writes:

Who cares about architecture when the OS platform and the development tooling around them are becoming more relevant?
Because the OS platform is still relevant. Some people still want to run lightweight desktop applications on a 10" laptop, even if they have to buy a tablet with a keyboard [nextbookusa.com]. "Mobile" operating systems don't run desktop applications. Or should people buy an Android tablet, install an X server, and recompile their applications for Linux/ARM?

Re: (Score:2)

bydj245 ( 732906 ) writes:

Actually it was announced a few weeks back (sorry I can't find the article, maybe somebody with better Google Fu?) that Intel was stopping the Intel Atom subsidy because they were taking a bath on the things and their tablets just weren't moving. The simple fact is Intel faces the same problem Apple had with PPC on the desktop, so much of the code is written for Android ARM and too few are willing to port to X86 ARM that they just couldn't get any traction.
With Intel no longer dumping product in the channel I have a feeling sub 12 inch X86 tablets are gonna go the way of the 8 track, all you'll get is 12 inch convertibles. This is fine by me, the fact that so many 7 and 10 inch tablets still come with only 512Mb of RAM is retarded but the key is gonna be getting a decent Windows 10-12 inch convertible at a price point to really compete against the low end tablets, say $100-$150 with $100 being a Win 10 Atom dual with 2GB of RAM and $150 being the quad 2GB?
I think the Lenovo Yoga Tablet 2 10" [lenovo.com] is pretty compelling. There are Android (x86) and Windows 8.1 models. The Android one is $249 with a 16GB of storage and no keyboard, and the Windows one is $369 with 32GB of space and a detachable bluetooth keyboard. All the other hardware is the same between the two models- 10.1" IPS touchscreen at 1920x1200, 2GB of RAM, MicroSD slot accepting XDSC cards, and dual-band 802.11abgn.

I wanted a tablet with a high-resolution screen, 5GHz networking (2.4Ghz is comple

Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

byMightyYar ( 622222 ) writes:

I'm not sure why anyone would mourn the worthless abortion that was Windows RT.
Most of MS's initial attempts are "worthless abortions". I was hoping that they would stick with it in the boneheaded way that they always do to provide another competitive option. You see iOS and Android borrow from MS and from each other. I mourn the loss of competition, not the product itself.
And no, I don't consider the full-blown Surface to be real competition for most Android tablets. It's in the price range of the iPads, but has half the battery life. You have to actually need Windows in order for it

multi-arch Windows (Score:4, Interesting)

byunixisc ( 2429386 ) writes: on Friday January 23, 2015 @11:59AM (#48885495)

NT multi-architecture might be a good thing, but the time for that had come & gone once the Alpha went under. They could still resurrect it for the MIPS or the Power architecture (the same one that they made the Xbox 360s) and go there. But the opportunity to go multi-architecture for Microsoft existed in the 90s, and they blew it. Had they made a separate win64 based OS (like we have today) then for just the Alpha & the MIPS, they'd have had time to test & refine it, and had alternatives to 64-bit Wintel when it surfaced. But they never made any serious attempts to support these platforms.
I think now, the wars are b/w platforms, rather than just OSs or just CPUs. The only thing you'll get iOS on will be the A series of processors from Apple. Android comes on a variety of platforms, but Windows Phone 8.x seems to come on just the Cortex.

Parent Share
twitter facebook

Re: (Score:2)

byCastrTroy ( 595695 ) writes:

I have a Surface 2 with Windows RT, and even though It's not getting Windows 10, it's still had way more updates than any Android device I've ever had, which is exactly the market it was competing in. I really like it and use it every day. I only wish it had more games, but other than that, it does everything I want out of a tablet. If it continues to be compatible with games made for Windows 10 app store, then that would be a huge plus. It doesn't need to have the entire operating system, just support for

If Microsoft would unlock the boot loader now... (Score:5, Interesting)

byron_ivi ( 607351 ) writes: <[moc.secivedxelpmocpaehc] [ta] [ontods]> on Friday January 23, 2015 @12:00PM (#48885511)

If Microsoft would unlock the boot loader now, heck, even I (who dislike most microsoft products except their keyboards and mice) would probably be happy to buy a Surface RT.
Seriously - I like the form-factor of the device - and the price. The only thing that stopped me from buying one when they came out was the OS.
Request for Microsoft --- now that you're abandoning it --- please unlock the boot loader.

Parent Share
twitter facebook

Re: (Score:2)

byCastrTroy ( 595695 ) writes:

The actual OS I really like. It has a lot of features that are missing from iOS and Android. One big plus is the support for Network drives. If an app can read a file, it can read it from anywhere, including network drives and OneDrive. There's no special coding required on the application developers part. And apps are still restricted well enough that they can't just read/write willy-nilly to the file system.

What I really don't like is just the fact that so few developers have latched on to their App s

Re: (Score:2)

bytepples ( 727027 ) writes:

If they aren't going to support it anymore, they should at least provide a supported way for running whatever apps you want to on it. Let people program their own applications at least.
In theory, you can get a developer license [microsoft.com] without charge to privately deploy self-made apps onto an Internet-connected Windows RT device. Like the Steam receipt cache, a Windows developer license expires after a month but can be renewed without charge indefinitely.

Re: (Score:2)

byCastrTroy ( 595695 ) writes:

I've use that to develop my own software. It's really quite great. If they just opened up the development a bit more so that things didn't expire, or things didn't have to be signed at all, then it would be as good as Android as far as side-loading apps goes. I also think it would be great if they opened up the desktop API. there was a jailbreak for Windows 8 (doesn't work on 8.1) which allowed desktop apps to be run if recompiled. I think they got DOSBOX, SharpDevelop, and a few other things working on it

Re: (Score:2)

bytriffid_98 ( 899609 ) writes:

I think that RT was kind of a short stop-gap solution to fix the problem of making low(er) cost Windows tablets at a time when running full Windows would have been just too expensive. Not that you can get tablets running full X86 windows for $100-$200, there's much less of a reason to continue on with Windows RT.

I think costs may have been part of it but the bigger issue was battery life. Now that Intel has fully fledged x86 chips that are quite close on power consumption there's no longer any reason to

Re: (Score:2)

byspire3661 ( 1038968 ) writes:

Windows 8 shrunk down enough to low end hardware that RT isnt needed. Im running Win 8.1 on a 7" tablet with 16 GB eMMC and 1 GB of ram that i bought for $59 retail.

Re: (Score:2)

byMightyYar ( 622222 ) writes:

Is that the iView? My understanding is that there is a battery life penalty. 2/3 to 1/2 that of a comparable ARM system.

Re: (Score:2)

byspire3661 ( 1038968 ) writes:

IN this particular case the device only has a 3000mah battery.It runs for about 5 hours. Its a Winbook Tw700. Honestly i use it as a 'presence' device so i can get into networks i manage so battery life wasnt a concern for me.

Re: (Score:3)

byMightyYar ( 622222 ) writes:

Whatever the battery life, the idea of a $60 computer that can run full-blown windows still kind of blows my mind. I remember when my co-workers and I would come back from Asia with Librettos because we thought they were so mind-blowingly small. :)

Re:Translation: (Score:5, Informative)

byc2me2 ( 2202232 ) writes: on Friday January 23, 2015 @11:03AM (#48884945)

You are completely full of shit. Somehow, Microsoft supporting multiple hardware platforms magically becomes Microsoft restricting hardware platforms! It's like you live in bizarro-land.
NT was built on MIPS, then later ported to x86 and other platforms. MIPS failed in the marketplace, so Microsoft *did what customers wanted* and stopped supporting MIPS.
Microsoft ported NT to Alpha, because that looked like the next big platform (in workstations and servers). Alpha was ridiculously expensive, both to buy and to run, and Intel advanced their processor tech enough that Intel matched and then beat Alpha performance. So customers only wanted to x86 machines. So what did EVIL MICROSOFT do? They stopped wasting time on Alpha, because the market wanted x86.
When Intel developed Itanium, which was supposed to be the Next Big Thing, Microsoft supported that 100% in Windows. Microsoft fixed all of its 32-bit-vs-64-bit bugs in Windows and in the main server apps (SQL, etc.), and supported and sold these products on Itanium. How is that restricting choice??
When AMD developed AMD64, Microsoft worked with AMD to port Windows to it. Mind you, Microsoft had to be secretive, because publicly they were still committed to Itanium, and Intel really did not want a competitor. AMD64 would never have reached the market unless Microsoft had ported Windows to run on it. You literally have Microsoft to thank for desktop 64-bit computing -- without Microsoft, AMD never would have had the support to push a new x64 chip design, and Intel would not have been forced to change their own designs to match.
"When Microsoft dominated they pushed developers towards non-cross platform development" God, you're insane. Microsoft pushed non-platform development in the sense that they pushed *THEIR OWN PLATFORM*. What the fuck is wrong with that?? I don't see Linus pushing cross-platform development across Mac, Linux, and Windows -- he pushes development on Linux, and nothing else! What the fuck is wrong with that?

Parent Share
twitter facebook

Re: (Score:3)

bymrchaotica ( 681592 ) * writes:

AMD64 would never have reached the market unless Microsoft had ported Windows to run on it.
I don't believe that. Since x86-64 is backwards-compatible to 32-bit OSs, It would have been just fine for AMD to release it running 32-bit Windows. It was still as faster processor, after all, whether it was running in 64-bit mode or not.
Then customer demand would have forced Microsoft to provide x86-64 support, Intel's wishes be damned.
In fact, the way I remember it, that's pretty much what happened. The first x86-6

Re: (Score:2)

byHowitzer86 ( 964585 ) writes:

I remember this too. Wasn't compatibility the main reason for sticking to 32 bit Windows XP on a 64 bit system? A big reason I remember is that if you didn't have more than 4 GB of ram you wouldn't see a benefit, and at the time, 2 GB was still huge. Actually, 2 GB was the limitation most 32 bit software had because you needed to flip the /3GB switch [microsoft.com] in boot.ini, and even then the software had to be compiled a certain way to be large address aware.
At the time, AMD was known for having the faster processor

Re: (Score:2)

bydrinkypoo ( 153816 ) writes:

I remember this too. Wasn't compatibility the main reason for sticking to 32 bit Windows XP on a 64 bit system?
Well, sort of. The main problem was that XP64 was a festering pile of ass. But yeah, compatibility was a big problem; you couldn't just use your XP32 drivers, and a lot of manufacturers didn't bother to release a 64-bit driver for their hardware.

Re: (Score:2)

byunixisc ( 2429386 ) writes:

I think that by non cross-platform development, GP means that Microsoft forced their own developers to focus only on Wintel. For the time that they were available, Microsoft could have released complete versions of Office on the MIPS and the Alpha.
MIPS and Alpha failed due to a lack of native applications. Now, remember, Microsoft writes a few of those - like Office, and they could have given it a start. Like Office, Visual Studio, Money, and a few others. But they didn't. The only Office that ever s

Re: (Score:2)

bytlhIngan ( 30335 ) writes:

Like they dumped CE
Windows CE is still around, actually.
Windows Embedded Compact [microsoft.com] is the new name for Windows CE - it's confusing as hell since it's similar to Windows Embedded (which is based off standard Windows), but the "Compact" (or "Automotive") version is Windows CE.
it was this way since Windows CE 7 which was renamed to Windows Embedded Compact 7. (Now they're at Compact 2013)

Not surprising (Score:4, Interesting)

bydaninaustin ( 985354 ) writes: on Friday January 23, 2015 @10:26AM (#48884617)

MS has a habit of abandoning devices. Maybe that's a reason so few people want their phones.

Share
twitter facebook

Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

byAnonymous Coward writes:

That parent, right there.
As a developer, this is the one thing that pisses me off about microsoft the most. Wasted time and effort developing an app for a specific platform only for it to be dumped (the language, the OS version or device range).
Though if you used something like unity, it's less painful as you can retarget other platforms I suppose.

Re:Not surprising (Score:5, Interesting)

byPope Hagbard ( 3897945 ) writes: on Friday January 23, 2015 @10:33AM (#48884693) Journal

On the other hand, Android mfrs tend to either provide just 1-2 updates or not at all, and those phones sell pretty well.

Parent Share
twitter facebook

Re: (Score:2)

bydanbob999 ( 2490674 ) writes:

Android provides incremental updates. Microsoft tend to break the compatibility either completely (like from Windows Mobile to Windows Phone 7) or mostly (like from Windows Phone 7 to 8, and now 8 to 10). Android updates are comparable to updates from WP7 to 7.5 to 7.8 or 8 to 8.1

Re: (Score:2)

byJackieBrown ( 987087 ) writes:

Most apps are not dependent on the updated android OS version so it's less of an issue. I had a windows 5 phone bought when windows 6 phones were already out. Shame on me for not doing my homework, but almost every app I was interested in required (not preferred) Windows 6.

Re: (Score:2)

bythegarbz ( 1787294 ) writes:

The key difference is Android isn't broken out of the box. Windows RT was. People are tolerating the device hoping things will change whereas on the flip side many Android users don't want to change.
I'm hotly anticipating the next version of Windows to fix the clusterfuck that is 8.1 I'm sure the people with Windows gimp edition errr I mean RT were anticipating it even more.

Re: (Score:2)

byPope Hagbard ( 3897945 ) writes:

Android back around 2.0/2.1 was fairly crap out of the box. It got better, but it was overall inferior to iOS when I got my old Droid.

Re: (Score:2)

bysteelfood ( 895457 ) writes:

A phone is not a tablet. For most people, phones get replaced once every two years. While tablets are not like computers who have a lifetime of upwards of 7 years, they're in between, around 4 or 5.
And the developer base is different too. The moment Vista came out, people began migrating their applications off XP. But developers were until fairly recently still developing with Gingerbread in mind.

Re: (Score:2)

byPope Hagbard ( 3897945 ) writes:

I think you'll find that Android tablets are just as poorly-supported for updates as phones.

Re: (Score:2)

byBlaskowicz ( 634489 ) writes:

RT a.k.a. Metro is an emulation layer already? it's about running touchy apps on .NET, or html/javascript. So the compatibilty seems easy and they can quietly update a few things behind the scene (.NET version, Metro/RT libraries)

Re: (Score:2)

byPope Hagbard ( 3897945 ) writes:

If. Most people don't buy Nexi.

Re: (Score:2)

byDerekLyons ( 302214 ) writes:

Seriously? So does Apple, and pretty much every other hardware manufacturer out there.

Re: (Score:2)

bydanbob999 ( 2490674 ) writes:

Not on the same scale. Most Android/iOS apps still work on tablets from 3-4 years ago. Apps developped next year (Windows 10) likely won't run on Windows RT devices sold this year. Just like WP7 apps didn't run on WinMo devices sold the day before.

Re: (Score:2)

byJust Some Guy ( 3352 ) writes:

I can't speak to Android, but Apple still supports and issues updates to the three year old iPhone 4S. Microsoft sometimes just walks away from stuff [wikipedia.org].

Re: (Score:2)

byDogDude ( 805747 ) writes:

I get a new phone every two years. I just picked up my third Windows Phone the other day. An OS, yes, I'd like supported for a decade or so. A phone? Meh. I'll grab a new one every few years, and get the new software along with it. I haven't felt like they've abandoned my phones at all.

Re: (Score:2)

byaccount_deleted ( 4530225 ) writes:

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re: (Score:2)

byTheGratefulNet ( 143330 ) writes:

careful, there! EVERYONE abandons phones. for some god damed reason, its a truth. MS, google and apple all abandon their mobile platforms way too quickly. none are knights in shining armor, here. they all suck and are all bad players, forcing re-re-rebuying of perfectly good hardware.
regular pc's don't get EOL'd so quickly (at least with linux and even with windows, support is quite long). apple eol's things universally too fast, but apple sucks and people already know this and expect it from apple.
it

Translation: (Score:2, Troll)

bygstoddart ( 321705 ) writes:

Given that Windows RT and RT 8.1 were designed for power economizing devices sporting 32-bit ARM architecture, and never had the same functionality -- to many users' frustration -- as full-blown Windows 8 and 8.1, it comes as little surprise that the RT versions of the operating system should be left out of the latest update loop
In the Microsoft view of the world, all devices will become power hogs which are comparable to a desktop, because they've completely missed the fucking point.
I think this is why MS'

Re: (Score:2)

byChrisq ( 894406 ) writes:

They have yet to see past Exchange and Office and understand what most people actually do with these things.
You mean watch porn, right?

Re: (Score:2)

bygstoddart ( 321705 ) writes:

Well, I assume YouTube videos and Facebook (or whatever the hep kiddies are running) .... but, yeah.

Re: (Score:2)

byCastrTroy ( 595695 ) writes:

With newer Broadwell and Skylake processors coming down the line, and a 4.5 watt chip that will run full x86 Windows, there's very little reason for Microsoft to not think that everybody will be running a full power Windows installation on every device that isn't a phone. And if they can make the phone run the same apps with minor changes, then it lets developers target the entire ecosystem with very little effort. If you could have a single code base that easily supported phones, tablets, and desktop comp

Re: (Score:2)

byMightyMartian ( 840721 ) writes:

Except that mobile devices like phones and tablets are fundamentally different than PCs. Microsoft already tried this stunt with Windows 8, and got smacked down hard.

Re: (Score:2)

byCastrTroy ( 595695 ) writes:

I'll give you the distinction on a phone, but on a tablet, I'm really not so sure. What is the fundamental difference between an ultrabook, a Surface Pro, or a more traditional tablet. Sure I'll admit that as you move toward smaller tablets like 7 inch ones, running a full desktop OS becomes cumbersome, but you have to admit that there are some advantages to being able to run a full desktop application on your tablet in a pinch. Sure you'd want to be using tablet focused apps most of the time, but it's nic

Re: (Score:2)

byMightyMartian ( 840721 ) writes:

The difference between a 10" screen and, say, a 15" is a tough call, though I still think 10" is too big for a Metro style interface. Bump up to the 17"-22" monitors, and Metro is just a horrific experience that makes Windows 3.1 look like an ultra-modern GUI.
Like I said, Microsoft already tried it. It was a disaster. They're not going to try it again.

Re: (Score:2)

byIsca ( 550291 ) writes:

I think hybrid laptops are going to become more ubiquitous in the future, and some of them may even be as large as 17 inches.
But have you ever seen a family use a all in one pc device? Even though most of us find it easier to use a mouse/keyboard,I've sat and watched family members who bought one of those larger 21 inch all in one gateways sit at the desk, use the keyboard or mouse to open up their email, then flip over to a web page and start flicking their way through links by touching instead of using

Re: (Score:2)

byDragonslicer ( 991472 ) writes:

Except that mobile devices like phones and tablets are fundamentally different than PCs.
No they aren't. Current phones and tablets are still von Neumann computers. If they have ARM processors instead of x86/amd64 processors, then the different instruction set is handled by the C compiler. The only significant difference is the user interface, but writing multiple interfaces for the same software shouldn't be an overly complicated problem.

Phone as trackpad (Score:2)

bytepples ( 727027 ) writes:

Except that mobile devices like phones and tablets are fundamentally different than PCs.

In what way? Pair a Bluetooth keyboard and plug in an HDMI monitor, and the phone's touch screen ought to become the trackpad of a computer with a desktop-style window management policy.

Re: (Score:2)

byaccount_deleted ( 4530225 ) writes:

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re: (Score:2)

byaccount_deleted ( 4530225 ) writes:

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re: (Score:2)

bygstoddart ( 321705 ) writes:

As usual, you're working hard to spin things in the most negative light you can.
Honestly, it's not that hard.
ARM is a power-efficient platform, but nothing prevents Intel (or someone else) from producing a power-efficient x86/x64 platform.
And you know what, insisting on doing that basically means we're stuck with the same architectures and other baggage we've had for years. It's corporate inertia and laziness.
Love 'em or hate 'em, both iOS and Android did new thingsonnew platforms, and did them different

Re: (Score:2)

byspire3661 ( 1038968 ) writes:

Dude, ubiquity and compatibility over new and shiny. ARM SUCCKKKKKSSSSSSSS compared to x86 in these areas. Shrunk down x86 is a MUCH smarter path, even with all the cruft.

Re: (Score:2)

bygstoddart ( 321705 ) writes:

I was really hoping they could throw away the cruft and start fresh, like Android and iOS did.
The way forward isn't slavishly doing the same thing you've been doing for 25+ years.
To me, this just entrenches that we're stuck with every bit of crap baggage Microsoft has been carting around, and that they will essentially keep doing the exact same thing.
So, I like them for a desktop or a server ... but I think they're going to fail miserably for mobile devices.
Essentially they're just going to ram through the

Re: (Score:2)

byspire3661 ( 1038968 ) writes:

"The way forward isn't slavishly doing the same thing you've been doing for 25+ years."

You dont throw away what works just because its old. Shrunken x86 is still better then the best ARM designs. ARM will NEVER be better than Intel at making chips, they dont have the R&D that Intel does.Intel is not not going to fail miserably for mobile devices, the 8" windows tablets that are out right now are KILLER,. My Android TV Nexus Player runs Intel as well. Dell makes intel Android tablets. Bay Trail is ab

Re: (Score:3)

byspire3661 ( 1038968 ) writes:

One last thing, Google BOUGHT Android, it didnt write it from scratch. I loathe MS as much as the next BOFH, but saying they couldnt build an OS from scratch is quite frankly, asinine. The biggest problem MS ever had was their own success makes it hard for them to move when they want to.

Re: (Score:2)

byIsca ( 550291 ) writes:

Wait --- your argument has turned into how iOS and Android are doing more with smaller less resource hungry systems?
Tell that to the plethora of users with phones less than two years old who can't run iOS 8 or the newest Android builds because of changes to the underlying OS. This also includes the tons of apps that companies are making that won't run on older versions of their OS's and are growing in size.
There are plenty of things to bitch about with Microsoft's decisions but I don't think their decision

Ouch! (Score:2)

byBoRegardless ( 721219 ) writes:

What this says is no long term vision/planning/execution at Microsoft.

Re: (Score:2)

byspire3661 ( 1038968 ) writes:

We are still in the post-Ballmer transition. Its going to take some time for Nadella and Spencer to turn the ship. And make no mistake these recent announcements show they are at the wheel and turning it as fast as it will allow.

Re: (Score:2)

byroc97007 ( 608802 ) writes:

I think you're right, they're at maximum heel. I wonder at what point the sails touch the water. Or has this already happened?

Re: (Score:2)

bygstoddart ( 321705 ) writes:

Well, what you call "paying attention to reality" is a side effect of terrible vision/planning. It's not an accomplishment to stop selling a product which completely missed the mark in the first place.
Microsoft thinks they can tell the market what it is they want, and the keep getting it wrong.
Hell, they release copycat products, and they still keep getting it wrong -- because thy insist on putting their own stamp on things, and are stil stuck in the "Yarg, computers are for Exchange and Office".
I'm pretty

Re: (Score:2)

byConceptJunkie ( 24823 ) writes:

You're right, except for the fact that no one (outside of Microsoft anyway) ever expected RT to succeed in the first place. The wisdom of the masses can often be wrong, but this one was a gimmee. It's the same thing with Metro on the desktop. No one liked it. It was almost universally panned from the first moment people got a chance to see what it was, but MS doubled down on the bad idea. Now they are backpedalling on it in Windows 9^h 10 (but of course, not eliminating the need for it on the desktop

In other words... (Score:2)

byerp_consultant ( 2614861 ) writes:

He's dead Jim...

Another Ballmer anchor cut loose. (Score:3)

byjacks smirking reven ( 909048 ) writes: on Friday January 23, 2015 @10:45AM (#48884787)

While I would be pissed if I owned an RT device, the whole thing had the classic Ballmer "me too!" strategy all over it.

x86 can't support a tablet for more than 4 hours? Better use ARM! Everyone else is! Screw compatibility!

Whats that Intel? You've new chips coming in 8 months that will give Windows tablets 9 hour run-times with no real work on our part? You left a voicemail? Our WinPhone 7 never upgraded to voicemail and we didn't want to ditch it for WinPhone 8. Oops.

Share
twitter facebook

You have been Zuned (Score:3)

byBearhouse ( 1034238 ) writes: on Friday January 23, 2015 @10:52AM (#48884829)

Should have been fairly obvious, I would have thought, that the bastard child would be soon abandoned. The coffin lid was pretty-well nailed down from the start due to lack of application support, so it was more like WindowsCE (aka "wince").
Mind you, Google is hardly better - plenty of Android phones & tablets out there with no upgrade path, (yes, often because of the constructors or carriers crapware, I know). Also, don't bother trying to get iOS to run on an iPhone 4s or iPad 2 (I did - devices were virtually unusable).

Share
twitter facebook

Re: (Score:2)

byConceptJunkie ( 24823 ) writes:

But in the case of Android, I don't believe that is primarily Google's fault, short of requiring OEMs to provide an upgrade path, and I think the logistics of that would be difficult... how many upgrades? how long to support? Yes, some OEMs are idiots, but that's nothing new.
Windows RT was solely Microsoft's bad idea.

The 4S runs iOS just fine (Score:2)

byRadical Moderate ( 563286 ) writes:

Mine's running the latest version, 8.1.2, and it works great. Sounds like you just had a borked phone, it happens.

I agree re RT, it was obvious MS was abandoning it, anyone who expected to upgrade one to Win 10 was pretty clueless.

Re: (Score:2)

byjmac_the_man ( 1612215 ) writes:

What the hell does "Zuned" mean?
The last Zune devices were released to the market in 2009. The last version of the Zune software was released in 2012. (Notably, the music store is still operational, although it is rebranded in most places outside of the Zune software.
There was never third party software support for Zune devices, so it's not like that was "pulled."
The Zunes were always a technically superior option to the iPods of their day. The thing that killed the Zune was the fact that people wante

Re: (Score:2)

byaccount_deleted ( 4530225 ) writes:

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re: (Score:2)

byvux984 ( 928602 ) writes:

Calls from slashdotters that redmond is abandoning surface might hold water.
Honestly, calls from /. about Microsoft are usually full of crap.
That said, Microsoft abandoning Surface RT is probable. The surface pro on the other hand is a solid concept that is getting better with each iteration.
Combine this with Gaben's steam machines, OS, and broad support for an approachable commodity linux
Steam Machines and Steam OS is Valve's hedge against being one-punched out of business by a hypothetical future micros

Bye Windows RT (Score:2)

byErichTheRed ( 39327 ) writes:

I guess that's the end of RT and ARM-powered Windows devices.
In my opinion this is a good thing. Despite all the bashing, Microsoft has done a decent job with server operating systems lately, and Windows 7 was pretty good. It's interesting that they have enough money, power and leverage to recover from a move that would probably have sunk a smaller company -- it was also able to absorb 3 iterations of Surface Pro before they got it right, and the killing of Surface RT. Windows 8 was basically a panic reacti

Re: (Score:2)

byroc97007 ( 608802 ) writes:

> Despite all the bashing, Microsoft has done a decent job with server operating systems lately
Well, at least up until October 26, 2012. (Wow, was it really that long ago?)

I'm shocked. (Score:2, Informative)

byroc97007 ( 608802 ) writes:

Shocked, I tell you. That Microsoft would release a non-real-windows-compatible, promote it, and then leave users out in the cold. This has never ever happened before Windows CE. Sorry, I mean, Windows Alpha. Sorry sorry sorry, I mean Windows RT.

Re: (Score:2)

byruir ( 2709173 ) writes:

Brilliant sir.

"A normal version of Windows" (Score:2)

bygatkinso ( 15975 ) writes:

Not very PC.. or maybe it is 100% PC.

CNN Kick Stands (Score:2)

byjfdavis668 ( 1414919 ) writes:

CNN can go back to using them as kickstands to hold up their ipads. As seen on CNN...

Re: (Score:2)

byOzPeter ( 195038 ) writes:

one os for all devices?
And now they are starting to burn the evidence that one particular class of devices ever existed. In another year we'll all be saying "RT, what was that?"

Re: (Score:2)

bywjcofkc ( 964165 ) writes:

I'm sure it will be quite the opposite in Oceania.

Re: (Score:2)

byTotenglocke ( 1291680 ) writes:

Didn't MS say that they were going to roll RT and Windows Phone into one OS for a "mobile" version of Windows 10?

Re: (Score:2)

byunixisc ( 2429386 ) writes:

Maybe Windows Phone 10 will be the version for Surface RT toys?

Re: (Score:2)

byfuzzyfuzzyfungus ( 1223518 ) writes:

Unlikely. The effective death of Windows RT only affects some 32-bit ARM devices, of which there are still about a zillion in the field, and more rolling off the production line as we speak(and likely to continue to be for some time to come, unless ARM Ltd. decides to piss off every customer who cares about cheap CPUs and has no need to even touch the boundaries of a 4GB memory space.

The non-RT 'Surface Pro' devices were 64 bit x86s from the start(though there were a few devices that shipped with 64 bit

Re: (Score:2)

byMightyMartian ( 840721 ) writes:

I have my doubts that a "zillion" RT devices are floating around out there, unless you mean in a warehouse somewhere.

Re: (Score:2)

byfuzzyfuzzyfungus ( 1223518 ) writes:

Ah, that was ambiguous. I meant that there are zillions of 32-bit ARM devices in the field. Only a hilariously tiny percentage of those are RT devices; but given the absurdly gigantic number of ARM architecture CPUs shipped, and the fact that 64-bit ARM is still very new and a relatively modestly player even in higher end stuff(much less the 'just a bit more than a microcontroller' market, where it probably never will be, I'm assuming that 32-bit ARM is going to be sticking around for a good while yet. RT,

Re: (Score:2)

byspire3661 ( 1038968 ) writes:

Why?

Re: (Score:2)

byOhPlz ( 168413 ) writes:

Having to create and maintain only one build is better than two. It would also force software companies to develop for 64 bits. If MS dropped 32 bit support, maybe we'd finally get a 64 bit version of Visual Studio that doesn't drop dead when you hit over 3GB in use. Is Firefox even 64 bit on windows yet (the main version, not a dev branch)? There's no reason for most of us to have 32 bit support on our PCs anymore, and dropping it would convince some stragglers to finally release their software in 64 b

Re: (Score:2)

byOhPlz ( 168413 ) writes:

You guys are all over the Connect requests for this, and I want to strangle each and every one of you.
Yes, the code itself doesn't take up much memory. If that's all we were doing, we would never hit the 3GB ceiling. VS isn't just a text editor. When you start using designers (both MS's and third party), analyzers, code mapping, workflow, etc you'll find that you quickly run out of space. Products like DevExpress really chew through memory. It is very easy to hit the limit, and there are many, many dev

Re: (Score:3)

byErichTheRed ( 39327 ) writes:

I have heard rumors from folks that work at MS that he was basically blinded by his vision, and didn't want to listen to anybody. The result as we all know, is Windows 8.
I heard the same rumors. What's interesting is that some people (Steve Jobs, etc.) can get away with that, and others (Ballmer/Sinofsky) can't. Jobs had to literally die before Apple made a large-screen iPhone, and I don't think we'll ever see new physical buttons on an Apple product again thanks to his minimalist design manifesto.
If they a

Re: (Score:2)

byspire3661 ( 1038968 ) writes:

Jobs had a sense of taste that no one at MS has. He kept a room in his house with just a nice chair and a Tiffany lamp with the idea that what you leave out is just as important as what you put in. Thats why he could 'get away with it', he actually had a sense of design.

Re: (Score:2)

bypainandgreed ( 692585 ) writes:

Jobs had to literally die before Apple made a large-screen iPhone, and I don't think we'll ever see new physical buttons on an Apple product again thanks to his minimalist design manifesto.
Thank god.

Re: (Score:2)

byroc97007 ( 608802 ) writes:

> So if you will not be able to upgrade the OS and MS eventually stops providing updates to that OS will they at least release the keys to install something else?
No of course not. And the reason is, if you continue using your Surface RT, regardless of what OS you're running, you aren't buying some other Microsoft product. I think the expected behavior is to throw your RT away and buy a "real" Surface. So hop to it.

There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.

Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.

● 396 commentsMeta Says Llama 4 Targets Left-Leaning Bias

● 377 commentsAmericans' Junk-Filled Garages Are Hurting EV Adoption, Study Says

● 371 commentsMexico Threatens To Sue Google Over Gulf Renaming

● 363 commentsAmericans are Buying Twice as Many Hybrids as Fully Electric Vehicles. Is The Next Step Synthetic Fuels?

● 323 commentsEV Sales Keep Growing In the US, Represent 20% of Global Car Sales and Half in China

next

Data Encryption On the Rise In the Cloud and Mobile
83comments

previous

Rare Astronomical Event Will See Triple Moon Shadows On Jupiter
53comments

Slashdot Top Deals

Slashdot

Moderate Moderator Help Delete

● Get more comments

● 100of158 loaded

● Submit Story

If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law. -- Roy Santoro

●FAQ

●Story Archive

●Hall of Fame

●Advertising

●Terms

●Privacy Statement

●About

●Feedback

●Mobile View

●Blog

Icon

Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.

×

Close

Close

Slashdot

Working...