Surface RT Devices Won't Get Windows 10

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.

Comments

Translation:

[Viol8]

"We're dumping RT"

Re:Translation:

[jandrese]

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.

Re:Translation:

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

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.

Re:Translation:

[maorb]

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 new start menu is a desktop centric upgrade so it doesn't really apply (and by default it would open the Start Screen on a Surface device anyways, so no change from Windows 8/8.1 RT behavior for Surface RT.

-Virtual desktops don't help on a device that almost exclusively runs Windows Store apps since they tend to be full screen, switching between apps is about as difficult as switching between desktops would be.

The only thing we lose out on is the new web browser, which is so far completely untested. Basically as long as Windows 10 doesn't introduce compatibility issues with Windows store apps continuing to run on Windows 8/8.1 nothing of value has been lost by not getting an upgrade.

Re:Translation:

[c2me2]

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?

Re:Translation:

[hairyfeet]

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?

Re:Translation:

[mrchaotica]

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 x86-64 chips came out in 2003, but Windows XP Pro 64-bit didn't come out until 2005. Even then, and most desktop users with 64-bit CPUs continued using 32-bit XP and didn't switch to 64-bit Windows until Vista (2007) or even 7 (2009). (I distinctly remember dual-booting 64-bit Linux and 32-bit WinXP for several years...)

Re:Translation:

[bmajik]

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...

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.

Re:Translation:

[spire3661]

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:Translation:

[petermgreen]

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 having to redesign their software to fit within the constraints of metro and then on top of that pay a 30% appstore fee to MS? We will never know for sure but I strongly suspect it would have had a better chance than in the crippled state it was sold in.

Re:Translation:

[MightyYar]

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. :)

Not surprising

[daninaustin]

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

Re:Not surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[Pope Hagbard]

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

Another Ballmer anchor cut loose.

[jacks smirking reven]

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.

You have been Zuned

[Bearhouse]

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).

Re:This is one of the reasons....

[ErichTheRed]

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 actually do teach MBAs something useful, the Windows 8 case would be a perfect example. I see mini examples of this in the large companies I've worked in as well -- one person gets a hold of the decision makers, doesn't let go, and blows things up because they stop listening to criticism.

multi-arch Windows

[unixisc]

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.

If Microsoft would unlock the boot loader now...

[ron_ivi]

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.

For the "netbook" crowd

[tepples]

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. "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?