Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Surface RT Devices Won't Get Windows 10

Posted by Soulskill on 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.

9 of 158 comments (clear)

  1. Translation: by Viol8 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "We're dumping RT"

    1. Re:Translation: by jandrese · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    2. Re:Translation: by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Translation: by c2me2 · · Score: 5, Informative

      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?

    4. Re:Translation: by bmajik · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      --
      My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
  2. Not surprising by daninaustin · · Score: 3, Interesting

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

    1. Re:Not surprising by Pope+Hagbard · · Score: 4, Interesting

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

  3. multi-arch Windows by unixisc · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  4. If Microsoft would unlock the boot loader now... by ron_ivi · · Score: 4, Interesting
    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.