Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Did Microsoft Simply Run Out of Time On Windows RT?

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the time-is-always-limited dept.

Microsoft 305

CWmike writes "Microsoft may have simply run out of time with Windows RT, Directions on Microsoft analyst Michael Cherry said on Friday. Windows RT, the name Microsoft slapped on the OS earlier this week after calling it 'Windows on ARM,' or WOA, for months, is the forked version of Windows 8 designed to run on devices powered by ARM SoCs, or system-on-a-chip. Cherry was referring to gaps in Windows RT's feature set, particularly the lack of 'domain joining,' the ability to connect to a corporate Windows network and the lack of support for Group Policies, one of the ways IT administrators use to manage Windows devices. 'This is pure speculation on my part, but it seems like they had to make a trade-off with Windows RT,' Cherry said. 'What we're hearing now about Windows RT is a function of time and how they wanted the thing to behave. It seems to me that the a key goal was to get battery life decent and keep the weight [of devices] down.' His analysis on RT's chance of success: 'I think you can take Windows RT off the table for enterprises,' he said."

cancel ×

305 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

No. (4, Insightful)

realityimpaired (1668397) | more than 2 years ago | (#39764461)

They didn't run out of time on it. They did what they've always done with what they see as "consumer" versions of their OS: they deliberately left out certain network- and enterprise-related functionality.

Re:No. (5, Insightful)

Overly Critical Guy (663429) | more than 2 years ago | (#39764503)

Microsoft has always had a strong enterprise relationship, so it's more likely that the lack of IT features is due to a rushed release schedule rather than sales strategy, especially considering that the iPad has been seeing rising enterprise adoption rates, which Microsoft is almost certainly aware of. Microsoft just didn't have a choice, because they're so far behind in the tablet market that they needed to release something at all costs.

Re:No. (4, Interesting)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 2 years ago | (#39764537)

They could be trying to emulate the iPad. Keep in mind that it's done pretty well without features as strong as those on Windows.

Re:No. (3, Interesting)

Overly Critical Guy (663429) | more than 2 years ago | (#39764597)

But the iPad has enterprise features and is seeing increased adoption in that section of the market. It already has over 80% adoption in Fortune 100 companies according to Network World and is part of an overall trend in IT toward letting employees use what they want rather than company-issued devices like the Blackberry. Microsoft would most certainly be aware of this, but I think they just didn't have the time to address it.

Re:No. (5, Interesting)

Enforcer-99 (1407855) | more than 2 years ago | (#39764699)

They could be but I'd say that's a bad bet - trying to "out Apple" Apple. Microsoft has always had advantages in existing software compatibility and enterprise security features (say what you will - Windows Mobile had many more security features than Android or iOS for a long time). They seem to be casting off their only real differentiators in an attempt to copy the success of the iPad. This will fail spectacularly.

Re:No. (5, Informative)

mystikkman (1487801) | more than 2 years ago | (#39764951)

They could be but I'd say that's a bad bet - trying to "out Apple" Apple.

Microsoft has always had advantages in existing software compatibility and enterprise security features (say what you will - Windows Mobile had many more security features than Android or iOS for a long time). They seem to be casting off their only real differentiators in an attempt to copy the success of the iPad. This will fail spectacularly.

What nonsense. There are a whole host of Windows x86 tablets coming with full touch support and with new form factors which will be fully compatible with existing software and enterprise features of PCs.

And not to mention the fact that the author doesn't mention the enterprise features that Windows RT has.
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2012/04/19/managing-quot-byo-quot-pcs-in-the-enterprise-including-woa.aspx [msdn.com]

Very telling that the author is Gregg Keizer, who was involved in the scandals with faking Windows benchmarks to drive page hits.
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/why-we-dont-trust-devil-mountain-software-and-neither-should-you/31024 [zdnet.com]

And the submitter is CWMike, from Computer World. They know that Slashdot laps up anti-MSFT FUD and thus they use it to write drivel and get page hits from Slashdot. And judging from the comments, they're very successful in manipulating Slashdot for their own gains as they've historically with the fake benchmarks.

Re:No. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39765053)

Take the valium, numbnuts. It'll do you good.

Re:No. (5, Informative)

realityimpaired (1668397) | more than 2 years ago | (#39764659)

They had ARM-based code to join domains and apply system policies in NT4... this isn't some new reinvention of the wheel like "WinFS" was, this is a porting of existing code to a different platform, one for which they already had working examples of code to compare against.

Quite aside from that, it's high level code. You do not need to write the algorithms to join an NT domain in assembly or machine code, you write it in C and compile it for the arch. Porting a Linux distro to ARM does not mean rewriting the code from the ground up, it means recompiling with different flags... why would it be any different for Windows?

Re:No. (0)

hobarrera (2008506) | more than 2 years ago | (#39764787)

why would it be any different for Windows?

I'm sure MS messed that up somehow, just like I'm sure you won't be able to "just recompile" your x86 applications on ARM without some big changes!

Re:No. (2)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 2 years ago | (#39764819)

I'm sure MS messed that up somehow, just like I'm sure you won't be able to "just recompile" your x86 applications on ARM without some big changes!

That depends how you wrote them, mainly. If it's straight C code which relies heavily on assumptions about the x86 architecture, then no. If they're .Net applications coded for the new Windows Runtime (which I understand they have to be, because you can only run Metro applications on Windows RT), then I doubt it will be too difficult to get them working on both.

Re:No. (0)

hobarrera (2008506) | more than 2 years ago | (#39764881)

Exactly: they already said applications for older versions of windows would not work on WoA, so they must've messed something up somewhere.

Re:No. (1)

rrohbeck (944847) | more than 2 years ago | (#39765221)

Writing portable C code is not rocket science. Writing something as arch independent as network protocol code in an arch dependent way is incompetent. I don't think MS coders are. Their management sometimes is, so I assume it was a deliberate decision to leave these features out, maybe to keep ARM out of the enterprise in favor of the heavier(more profitable?) x86 products.

Re:No. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39765347)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT

Look on the side under "Supported Platforms".

What do we see there? ARM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

M$ has been maintaining the codebase for windows on all these architectures since the dawn of time. They don't even need to recompile they already have a build compiled. Apparently M$ is a retard and refuses to give anybody what they demand and will probably go the way of the dodo.

Re:No. (2, Informative)

gstrickler (920733) | more than 2 years ago | (#39764965)

Not quite. NT3.x/4.x supported x86, Dec Alpha, MIPS, and PPC processors. It did not support ARM or SPARC. And, of course, they dropped support for all except x86. They did have support for ARM in Windows CE/Mobile, but whether that ever included code to join domains or Active Director, I can't say for sure.

Re:No. (2)

sosume (680416) | more than 2 years ago | (#39765039)

My guess is that the features which were left out for either consuming too many resources while running, too many threads or memory, or for having use cases that were a nightmare. Tablets are not very secure and easy to steal. Perhaps they have bigger plans to address these left-out features in further servicepacks, so Win 8 SP2 will be the version to look out for.

Re:No. (1)

Overly Critical Guy (663429) | more than 2 years ago | (#39765087)

There's more to enterprise support than C algorithms. Windows RT doesn't support third-party Win32 applications, so clearly, significant portions of Windows didn't survive the transition to ARM. The development and testing of WinRT-based administration and deployment tools to manage a collection of enterprise Windows 8 tablets requires time and effort that, I believe, Microsoft didn't have time to implement.

Apple claimed last October that 93% of Fortune 500 companies are testing and deploying iOS devices. Remember that Microsoft killed the Courier tablet project because it didn't interface with Office, so it's really difficult to believe that they'd intentionally hand Apple the enterprise market on a silver platter.

Re:No. (1, Insightful)

recoiledsnake (879048) | more than 2 years ago | (#39764843)

Microsoft has always had a strong enterprise relationship, so it's more likely that the lack of IT features is due to a rushed release schedule rather than sales strategy, especially considering that the iPad has been seeing rising enterprise adoption rates, which Microsoft is almost certainly aware of. Microsoft just didn't have a choice, because they're so far behind in the tablet market that they needed to release something at all costs.

Exactly, you're perfectly explained why the XBox 360 can't join a domain either.

They must have run out of time! After all they always had a strong enterprise relationship, so the explanation cannot be that the consoles are targeted at consumers. Maybe they'll have time to add domain join and group policy to the XBox 720, I can't wait to run SharePoint and BizTalk on it.

Just keep waving the hands (4, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 2 years ago | (#39764949)

Exactly, you're perfectly explained why the XBox 360 can't join a domain either. They must have run out of time!

I was not aware the Sony PS3 was making huge inroads into enterprises the way the iPad is.

Re:Just keep waving the hands (5, Informative)

recoiledsnake (879048) | more than 2 years ago | (#39765023)

Take some time to read this:

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2012/04/19/managing-quot-byo-quot-pcs-in-the-enterprise-including-woa.aspx [msdn.com]

There are a whole host of enterprise features that Windows RT supports.

If they're not enough, you can get a Windows 8 x86 tablet, which will support anything that a desktop PC currently supports.

Why didn't the article link to that blog post or talk about it? It's plain FUD targeted at people like you and the MS haters have lapped it up hook, line and sinker like they've done with the author's previous articles. I am sure you can make a case that the features are not enough, but not even mentioning them AT ALL shows that it's a FUD article designed to drive page hits.

See the submitter of this fake benchmark article:

http://tech.slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&type=story&sid=10/02/18/0429258 [slashdot.org]

Look at the submitter of this Slashdot story. It's the same Computer World guy.

Here's Slashdot post about how the above article was a fake.

http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/02/21/2329249/windows-7-memory-usage-critic-outed-as-fraud [slashdot.org]

Re:Just keep waving the hands (0)

Overly Critical Guy (663429) | more than 2 years ago | (#39765165)

You're contradicting your own arguments. If Windows RT lacks key enterprise tools because it's targeted at consumers, why would it have "a whole host of enterprise features", as you put it?

Re:No. (1)

Overly Critical Guy (663429) | more than 2 years ago | (#39765121)

The Xbox 360 can't join domains because there isn't enterprise demand for a game console. Let's not be silly by comparing things that aren't equivalent. iOS devices currently have a large enterprise presence, which is normally Microsoft's area of the market.

What are your semantics? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39765157)

Microsoft has always had a strong enterprise relationship

If by "strong enterprise relationship", you mean "had them firmly by the balls", then yes.

If by "strong enterprise relationship", you mean "had their respect", you need to get out more.

The again, whores don't want your respect - they just want your money.

Re:No. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39765167)

he is explained by whom?

Re:No. (4, Insightful)

DarkOx (621550) | more than 2 years ago | (#39764903)

I have to agree with this, despite what others are saying. Microsoft bread and butter is the enterprise market. Microsoft usually is pretty sensitive and aware of their needs/wants. Just looking at the wide market place that exists for mobile device management solutions; packages that try to glue Windows Domain like management infrastructure onto ISO or Droid; its pretty evident the enterprise IT world wants tablet software they can manage like your typical corporate desktop.

My guess Microsoft is aware that Enterprise IT has stalled as long as it can and pressure form the business both top and bottom to deploy tablets and smart phones to largish numbers of users is forcing them to act. Microsoft simply can't wait, once the F500 world gets substantial deployments of either Droid and IOS devices they are not going to switch.

If Microsoft does not get an entry into the table space NOW they will NEVER be more than an also ran there. It will (DROID | IOS ) + (Good | Zenprise | McAfee | Mobile Iron ) in the work place. There will be no consumer market for them either, as DROID and IOS already have that space and the only foot in the door Microsoft could get is the "well its what we use at work," late comers, who won't exist.

No this is pretty typical strategy on Microsoft's part. Get something out the door to stifle the "vaporware!" cries, even if it only delivers a tenth of the vision and promise the rest is coming in version inext.

Re:No. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39764519)

So instead of playing to their strengths and trying to take the emerging business market, they decided to focus on the war they already lost for the consumer market. Cunning as a rock.

Re:No. (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#39764711)

And meanwhile they're competitors have put at least some effort into interoperability with Microsoft enterprise software.

You Would think Microsoft would have a leg up in this area, if no other.

Re:No. (1)

master811 (874700) | more than 2 years ago | (#39764547)

They didn't run out of time on it. They did what they've always done with what they see as "consumer" versions of their OS: they deliberately left out certain network- and enterprise-related functionality.

If that were true, I'm sure they would have an enterprise version of their tablet OS as well, but they still only have one version for the tablet. Either that or they simply think that the enterprise features just aren't needed.

Re:No. (5, Interesting)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 2 years ago | (#39764885)

If it were true that the excuse was they "ran out of time", then someone somewhere would be lying. The ActiveDirectory integration of Windows isn't written in assembler, and there's no reason whatsoever to think it even has endian issues given it's all standard Kerberos and LDAP (OK, with some added functions, but nothing that involves decoding binary numbers in quite that way.) It's fair to say that enabling it is literally a matter of enabling a compile time flag, and running it through the test cycle a few times to catch whatever very minor issues might come up.

So whatever the case, we can safely rule out "time" as being a reason.

Here's a couple of more probable solutions.

1. Microsoft sees tablets right now as being a consumer item.

Microsoft is not ruling out there being a corporate need soon, but they know that tablet makers are not going to be trying to push them to small and medium businesses quite yet.

And larger enterprises aren't going to want it either. Larger enterprises are conservative, they're not going to jump ship or start corporately purchasing swathes of devices that do not run the software they already have, which by and large is standard Win32 (or even Win16) stuff. The day larger enterprises consider tablets worth jumping onto is the day Microsoft is in for a world of hurt, because an enterpise that can do that can just as easily switch to Ubuntu or Mac OS X, or iOS, or Android, or whatever, too.

So tablet makers are going to want a version of Windows that's aimed at the consumer. They're not going to pay extra, and waste precious Flash memory, on unneeded extras.

The story is essentially hogwash. This wasn't a decision made in a high level tech meeting, but in a marketing department. Having been bitten many times before, Microsoft is being very careful in introducing their tablet operating system.

2. We haven't moved to IPv6 yet

That might sound like a weird comment to make but think about it for a moment. The primary feature we're talking about here is domain management. Domain management works when every computer that's in the domain is part of the same network. There's little or no point in it when that's not the case.

Now... what are the characteristics of tablets? Well, tablets are ultraportable computing devices. If a business hands them out to employees expecting them to only ever be used on the corporate network, then... well, why is the business handing them out at all? Why not just go for regular PCs?

And if they're expecting the users to use them anywhere, then without hacks using VPNs, there's not going to be a way of ensuring the tablets are always on the same "network" as everyone else until that network is The Internet, which is only going to happen once we have ubiquitous IPv6.

Essentially, you're opening a can of worms by putting domain management features on a tablet in 2012. If "time" is the excuse, then it's not in the sense of "We can't implement domain management in time", because that's a load of crap. But it may be "We can implement it, but once we implement it, everyone's going to see a whole host of problems that have always been there, but weren't anything like as important back when you could expect even most office laptops to never leave the office network."

Re:No. (1)

SpryGuy (206254) | more than 2 years ago | (#39764725)

Or more likely, they expect Enterprises to buy new Win8 slates/tablets with actual Win8 on it to get the enterprise features.

Re:No. (4, Insightful)

Sir_Sri (199544) | more than 2 years ago | (#39764803)

They may simple not envision windows ARM as an enterprise product either. A windows 8 slate with an AM64/x86 CPU *should* be able to have comparable if not longer battery life compared to the arm counterparts, better compatibility, but probably a higher price. For an extra 100 bucks I could see the enterprise guys quite happy to keep it as 'regular' windows. Hell, for an extra 100 bucks I'd probably pay that as a home user device.

The problem MS is making is assuming that the home market and the enterprise can stay separate. They can't. Your desktop should be your server, domain controller, manage your 'group' policy (for one device per user and 1-4 users I'm not sure the term group really applies but it's the same basic usage scenario). Someone who goes out an buys a windows RT slate and then can't take advantage of the things that make windows windows is going to be a very angry customer. Enterprise buyers usually won't have that problem because they will have someone who knows something about the tech decide what to buy hopefully.

Put another way, I suspect Windows RT is going to be a consumer clusterfuck, but not because MS has 'ran out of time' on it, but because they don't understand how users will want to use it. If people want an ipad, let them buy an ipad. Windows slates need to be a different product than an ipad, but having a windows 8 RT shitty ipad clone that's basically a big phoneless phone, and a windows 8 x86 desktop without a keyboard sharing name and shelf space doesn't seem like a great plan.

Re:No. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39764861)

Who cares about Windows RT anyway?

They ran out of time years ago (2, Insightful)

Overly Critical Guy (663429) | more than 2 years ago | (#39764477)

Microsoft ran out of time years ago. The iPad has completely taken over the tablet industry; even Android hasn't yet found any footing there without the carrier infrastructure that helped it to compete with the iPhone in the smartphone industry. Worse yet for Microsoft, iPads now outsell the entire desktop PC industry.

But if you've followed Windows 8 development, you'll already have the impression that the whole thing was rushed. Poor design decisions exposed in the preview releases were ignored because the product was due for release this year, come hell or high water. Microsoft is afraid and knows that the era of the PC is over, and that smartphones and tablets--aka, appliance computing--is the new paradigm for mainstream computing. And Windows won't be there.

Re:They ran out of time years ago (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39764549)

It really must hurt for those open source developers who spent years in a futile attempt to recreate Microsoft's desktop ecosystem. Windows is big enough to survive as a legacy enterprise product, while Linux-on-the-desktop will be simply crushed like a bug under Apple's iPad boot. Sad.

Re:They ran out of time years ago (0, Troll)

negRo_slim (636783) | more than 2 years ago | (#39764567)

The iPad has completely taken over the tablet industry; ... Worse yet for Microsoft, iPads now outsell the entire desktop PC industry.

Odd that I know of no one that owns an iPad yet know dozens of people that have modern Windows desktops and several that own Android based tablets.

Re:They ran out of time years ago (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#39764747)

I saw someone using an iPad only three weeks ago. I saw another one last year.

Re:They ran out of time years ago (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#39764893)

I quite a few tablets on the train recently, but the only one I got close enough to to read the the make was an Asus tablet of some kind.

Re:They ran out of time years ago (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39764771)

By the same token, I only know one person with an Android tablet, a kindle, but I know many people with an iPad. I also use an iPad at work for inventory control.

Slashdot "evidence" (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39765201)

"Oh, well a few people I know own Android-based tablets and use Windows PC, so clearly iPads haven't taken over!" Apple sells more iPads in one quarter than total Android tablets have sold since the introduction of Android, and the sales data regarding iPads and desktop PCs is easily found via the most trivial of Google searches.

If you honestly believe the iPad doesn't dominate the tablet market, you are out of touch. This isn't a judgement either way on iPads or Android or Windows. It's just stating widely-known facts about the current state of the industry.

Re:They ran out of time years ago (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39765215)

Seriously? "Nobody *I* know uses it, therefore it must not be true!" What is this, ostrich logic?

It does support enterprise (4, Informative)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#39764483)

WinRT does have [msdn.com] central administration capabilities, just not as extensive as enterprise editions of Windows.

Re:It does support enterprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39764527)

Yeah, basically if you want to run a web or sql server on it or treat it as a desktop, you're SOL.

Re:It does support enterprise (1)

hobarrera (2008506) | more than 2 years ago | (#39764807)

Yeah, basically if you want to run a web or sql server on it or treat it as a desktop, you're SOL.

If you're tring to run either of those on a tablet you're dumb.

Re:It does support enterprise (2, Interesting)

spire3661 (1038968) | more than 2 years ago | (#39764915)

If you have no vision as to why these features might be useful in a portable and powerful machine then you are a fool. Right tool for the right job.

I love taking my rooted 32 GB nook color tablet with a samba server to my linux class and turning it on for my classmates to connect to during the 4 hour class. I just serve small books, utilities etc, but its nice to have.

Not everything needs to go through the internet when you can carry small, relevant bubbles of it with you. Stop thinking of tablets of these dumb terminals, thats retarded (no pun). They push and pull, can local process, all kinds of funky computing fun on the go and its all backed up by the biggest iron the planet has ever seen and its only going to get bigger!. Widen the scope of what you think tablets should be.

Re:It does support enterprise (1)

MatthiasF (1853064) | more than 2 years ago | (#39764565)

I agree, it does have some administration capabilities, but Microsoft probably left out the heavy hitting stuff because they expect the OS to be owned by consumers and not coworkers.

So, Microsoft had to keep the standard features on the home-user side of the line, otherwise enterprise features would allow a personal tablet or phone to be commandeered by their company's IT staff.

And I agree with them, they should keep the two separate or at least make sure the two are well defined in the OS so one can't harm the other.

Re:It does support enterprise (3, Informative)

im_thatoneguy (819432) | more than 2 years ago | (#39764889)

The real question is: why would you want an ARM powered Windows Tablet anyway? With Medfield http://www.anandtech.com/show/5365/intels-medfield-atom-z2460-arrive-for-smartphones/1 [anandtech.com] we're already seeing x86 not only competitive but actually besting some ARM devices for performance and battery life.

Corporations are going to want backwards compatibility in applications and other x86 capabilities. If corporations need the full group policies and enterprise features they can just buy a full copy of Windows 8 Enterprise.

If I was a corporate IT department I would prefer to support a single Windows version instead of trying to stay on top of both x86 and ARM updates and glitches.

A better question... (1)

jasmusic (786052) | more than 2 years ago | (#39764485)

When will Steven Sinofsky run out of time? By all accounts he's driving the whole enterprise into the ground with mindless dogma.

A matter of priorities (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39764491)

I guess someone thought a locked boot-loader and mandatory chain of trust that begins and ends at MS was more important than a solid set of working features.

Could've saved us all some time (5, Insightful)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | more than 2 years ago | (#39764501)

...and put this part in bold so I'd have known not to bother reading the rest of TFS:

This is pure speculation on my part

RT? (0)

ysth (1368415) | more than 2 years ago | (#39764515)

More like anti-RT (realtime).

I would have voted for Windows On ARM Hardware.

Re:RT? (1)

game kid (805301) | more than 2 years ago | (#39764555)

Woah...

It's a huge undertaking (0)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 2 years ago | (#39764541)

While I'm not a big fan of Microsoft, it should be said that porting the OS to a different architecture after many years of using an architecture designed with their input is a huge undertaking. Give them some time.

Re:It's a huge undertaking (1)

sandytaru (1158959) | more than 2 years ago | (#39764601)

And there's nothing to say they can't add those capabilities in a patch later down the road if enough people complain.

Re:It's a huge undertaking (3, Interesting)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 2 years ago | (#39765085)

I think the Vista debacle taught them that simply patching later on down the road won't help the product reputation any (seriously - Apple's growth w/ OSX really took off when Vista released). I also suspect that Microsoft can't afford to have too many turns at saying: "yeah it's a major missing feature, but we can always patch that in later".

This isn't 1999 anymore. There's actual competition out there now, and Microsoft can ill afford to have such a blase' attitude towards the consumer, *or* the enterprise.

Re:It's a huge undertaking (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39764611)

It has nothing to do with porting to ARM, you numbskull. WinRT is entirely new operating environment with no backward compatibility for traditional Windows apps and therefore has none of the stuff people actually want in Windows.

Re:It's a huge undertaking (0)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 2 years ago | (#39764979)

... you numbskull. ...

Good thing you added that bit. It made your argument so much more compelling.

Re:It's a huge undertaking (5, Interesting)

bheading (467684) | more than 2 years ago | (#39764651)

On the contrary, Windows NT ran on MIPS, PowerPC and Dec Alpha back in the day.

Even after Microsoft dropped support for non-Intel architectures with Windows 2000, it was rumoured that they maintained the ports to ensure that they did not break portability.

Re:It's a huge undertaking (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#39764933)

Even after Microsoft dropped support for non-Intel architectures with Windows 2000

They dropped support for non-Intel architectures, but not for non-x86 architectures. Windows Server 2008 was the last version to have Itanium support, and it shares more or less the same kernel as the consumer editions (or, rather, they're all branched from the same development tree) so processor independence never really went away in Windows NT. ARM is a lot more similar to x86 than Itanium, in terms of parts of the machine model that are exposed in C/C++ level. It's pretty hard to write C/C++ code that will work on x86, x86-64 and Itanium, but not ARM.

Re:It's a huge undertaking (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39764701)

Its funny though we've had a port of android to intel for some time now. I bet its a lot easier to port arm->intel than intel->arm

Re:It's a huge undertaking (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#39764967)

It's slightly easier. Things like JITs are easier to port in the other direction (targeting ARM or Thumb-2[EE] from a typical bytecode is easier than targeting x86), but any high-level code just sees a relaxation in some restrictions. You have the same endian on both. Both incur a performance hit for unaligned loads and stores, and old ARM doesn't support them at all, so it's possible to do some pointer arithmetic and casting that will work on x86 and not ARM, but it's pretty hard and usually it will just be a bit slow on ARM (if the compiler knows it's unaligned it can work around it with some two loads and mask + shift).

Re:It's a huge undertaking (2)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#39764739)

But the underling OS is portable and has been for 20 years. All the enterprise functionality is user land, written in c or c++ so should be trivial to recompile to ARM.

WOA (4, Funny)

88NoSoup4U88 (721233) | more than 2 years ago | (#39764583)

I can't help myself but see Keanu Reeves as Ted saying "woaaa".

Re:WOA (1)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 2 years ago | (#39764961)

Sure beats their other potential name for it, Windows "I-Know-Kung-Fu!"

The insane insistence on "Windows" (3, Interesting)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#39764625)

I have to disagree that Microsoft ran out of time. They just have an insane insistence that everything must but "Windows" even the Windows model doesn't fit. For style of tablets that compete with the iPad, they don't have to be desktops like Windows or OS X. Yet MS felt that they needed to spend development to shove the tablet model into Windows and label it as Windows 8. If MS focused on creating a new OS just for the tablet, they might have worked out all the enterprise features instead.

To clarify the article, Windows programs will run on Windows RT and Windows 8 but only if written specifically that way. Legacy programs are important to the vast majority of enterprises and are not compatible with Windows RT. So Windows RT was never going to be legacy compatible, why do they need to rewrite the desktop Windows model just to call it all "Windows".

The best use case I can see for Windows 8 hybrid approach is unfortunately something that MS has done in the past but never worked out. Hybrid tablet/laptops would have been great for Windows 8. But there is nothing on the horizon that remotely fits this vision. Intel is pushing for ultrabooks favoring less weight and more power efficiency instead of multi-touch transformable tablets. Seems like MS designed an OS for hardware that doesn't exist and even if it did is a very small percentage of users instead of optimizing for the hardware that is in the near future.

Re:The insane insistence on "Windows" (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39764707)

They would be crucified by the dev community if they reworked the whole win32 stack. At first wince had the same promise but we quickly figured out that it wasnt 'really' win32. We ditched it quick.

Its the api stack we want. We have spent 20 years learning it...

What you are thinking about is the GUI. They are trying that too. But you know what? It sucks. When you go from a device you can 100% control to one where you sorta control it and sorta know what is going on people will ignore it...

I know... Apple ran out of time too! (1)

crath (80215) | more than 2 years ago | (#39764759)

Saying that MS ran out of time is like saying that the iPad's missing enterprise features are because Apple ran out of time. The iPad's adoption is about user experience, not making CIO's lives happier.

Re:I know... Apple ran out of time too! (1)

gstrickler (920733) | more than 2 years ago | (#39765243)

Saying that MS ran out of time is like saying that the iPad's missing enterprise features are because Apple ran out of time.

If Apple had a huge installed base in enterprises, with the types of centralized management features Windows AD/GPO offers, then your point would be valid. However, Apple basically didn't have such an installed base, nor did they offer such centralized management features. Theerfore, they didn't have that legacy expectation to fulfill. And almost as important, they didn't have any established competition in the iPad market, it was a new category of product, that happened to have >200k apps available at launch by virtue of the iPhone market.

The iPhone itself had most of the same things going for it at launch, except for that Blackberry and WinMo devices were established competitors. There were some enterprise features developed for the iPhone (Exchange connectivity, third party management tools, etc.), and the iPad had those same capabilities at launch.

The iPad's adoption is about user experience, not making CIO's lives happier.

Correct. But it's being adopted in enterprises because it provides capabilities that haven't been viable before, not just because user's want it.

Re:I know... Apple ran out of time too! (2)

symbolset (646467) | more than 2 years ago | (#39765313)

It's hard to criticize the iPad. They are making them as fast as they can and selling every one at huge margin. It's just impossible under that condition to make a compelling argument that the product is missing something it really needs. You can't sell more than "all of them".

Re:The insane insistence on "Windows" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39764775)

We already have hybrid tablet/laptops or multi-touch transformable tablets. They're called Tablet PCs and are awesome for note-taking college students. In fact, they've been on the market for years.

There's been very few new concepts. Just lots of older concepts starting to make it into consumers' hands due to smaller hardware and better batteries.

Re:The insane insistence on "Windows" (2)

recoiledsnake (879048) | more than 2 years ago | (#39764801)

Hybrid tablet/laptops would have been great for Windows 8. But there is nothing on the horizon that remotely fits this vision. Intel is pushing for ultrabooks favoring less weight and more power efficiency instead of multi-touch transformable tablets. Seems like MS designed an OS for hardware that doesn't exist and even if it did is a very small percentage of users instead of optimizing for the hardware that is in the near future.

Have you been living under a rock?

Have you checked out the Ideapad Yoga with 10 multitouch points? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIGUwyAXpgQ [youtube.com]

And the news that around 32 touch models will debut this year with Windows 8? http://www.informationweek.com/news/hardware/handheld/232900536 [informationweek.com]

More: http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/04/intel-cove-point-ultrabook-tablet-hybrid-running-windows-8/ [wired.com]

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9226083/Intel_working_with_10_vendors_on_Windows_8_tablets?taxonomyId=12 [computerworld.com]

I think the reason you think the hardware doesn't exist is that they're keeping it under wraps so that they don't cannibalize existing sales now, which makes sense really.

Re:The insane insistence on "Windows" (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#39765299)

Most of the hardware you describe doesn't exist except for the Yoga which is Intel not ARM. Windows RT is for ARM.

And the news that around 32 touch models will debut this year with Windows 8?

32 touch tablet are expected, but they are not hybrids that I was talking about. Also when the iPad was released, CES 2010 [pcworld.com] was full of Windows tablets that were going to launch in the same year. Except for the HP Slate, what happened to them?

Intel's Cove Point was shown off by Intel as a prototype not by an OEM.

Currently, no OEMs have made a Cove Point announcement, but we would be surprised if manufacturers ignored the ultrabook-hybrid form factor entirely.

First Cove Point uses an Intel chip not ARM and second, no word on if this will be made by an OEM.

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9226083/Intel_working_with_10_vendors_on_Windows_8_tablets?taxonomyId=12 [computerworld.com]

Again, I never said anything Windows 8 Tablets not coming out. I said the best use case was a tablet/laptop hybrid. This store only points to Windows 8 Tablets.

I think the reason you think the hardware doesn't exist is that they're keeping it under wraps so that they don't cannibalize existing sales now, which makes sense really.

Existing sales of what? Windows 7 tablets? They are not exactly flying off the shelves. For MS' part, they haven't kept anything under wraps so existing enterprise customers needing to decide on Windows 8 or Windows 7 pretty much have most of the information.

Re:The insane insistence on "Windows" (3, Insightful)

im_thatoneguy (819432) | more than 2 years ago | (#39764841)

The largest advantage of a Windows Tablet is that everything just works. You can run Starcraft if you feel like it. You can run not some butchered Google Docs or HTML5 version of office but the real application. You can run the real version of flash, silverlight and everything else if you really really need to. You can fail-back to a normal desktop experience if needed.

I have an Android Tablet and it is incredibly frustrating to constantly run into limitations and gaps in the software and OS. For instance the other day I just really wanted to send a link to a friend on facebook messenger. I didn't have the Facebook App installed so I figured I would just fire up Opera. Much profanity later I finally got the message out but even with awkward finger interfaces in Windows I would have been able to send it much more quickly. There is a popular web forum I read that doesn't have an app. I was trying to write a comment but their javascript WYSIWYG comment window wasn't registering my typing correctly. It's that kind of incompatibility that just-works on a PC that no tablets offer yet.

What will differentiate Windows 8 from Android and the iPad is that it's a full blown honest to God OS for when you really really need the real honest to god versions of applications. If you want to see what your idea of Windows 8 would have looked like in the market look at WP7. Microsoft knocked it out of the park according to the consensus of reviewers but it just isn't different enough to convince people to use it. If Microsoft tried to offer an OS specifically written for tablets then it would probably make 3% of the market and offer nothing of interest. Microsoft did the right thing. They are offering something very unique, the full windows experience and app compatibility but also with a mode which is friendly to touch. But they took it a step further and ensured "if you buy Photoshop for your tablet you also get photoshop for your PC and if you buy angry birds for your tablet you also get it for your PC." I assume the next step will be 'if you buy angry birds for your PC you also buy it for your tablet and phone.'

I used to use an Android phone and it's obnoxious that I have to repurchase all of my apps for my new phone OS and that I can't play them on my Xbox or PC. Microsoft and Apple are both in the near future fighting to offer the "Buy once, run anywhere" model of applications. If you had to buy separate applications for your laptop and your desktop there would be a revolt.

I don't think Microsoft ran out of time. I think Microsoft just doesn't care about WindowsRT. x86 and ARM are going to performance and battery life parity by the time Windows8 Launches. Microsoft is going to go "Look you can buy a WinRT computer with no backwards compatibility that only runs new apps or you can buy Windows 8 and get all of your old applications and the new ones. Which do you want? The hardware is the same in performance and battery life." People are going to choose x86 because once again ARM just can't stand up to the unstoppable juggernaut that is Intel's foundry and development arms. And in 12 months when Microsoft quietly kills their ARM fork they're going to say "See you asked for ARM and we ensured it ran on ARM but the market has spoken and Intel won out again."

Re:The insane insistence on "Windows" (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#39764905)

The largest advantage of a Windows Tablet is that everything just works. You can run Starcraft if you feel like it. You can run not some butchered Google Docs or HTML5 version of office but the real application. You can run the real version of flash, silverlight and everything else if you really really need to.

But, um, that's rather the point. The tablet claims to be 'Windows', but you can't do any of those things.

All you'll be able to run are ARM apps, Metro apps and the limited subset of .Net apps that can run on ARM. If you try to run some random Windows program on your tablet, you'll probably find it won't run.

Re:The insane insistence on "Windows" (1)

im_thatoneguy (819432) | more than 2 years ago | (#39765225)

You're taking my statement out of context and making it in response to something other than the OP.

The OP said that it was a mistake for Microsoft to force its TabletOS to be "Windows" and should have simply pursued a "Windows-Tablet".

My point was that the ARM Tablet market running on a "tablet-OS" is already over-saturated and deficient in many areas that are important to customers.

I went on to say that my prediction is that the ARM branch of Windows 8 will not be very successful and will be killed in the not too distant future. The only reason Microsoft released an ARM version of Windows 8 was to offer the argument that if you like ARM and think ARM is faster you can get as good of an experience as you're getting with an iPad today (but with cross platform application support in Metro Apps) so you have no excuse. I also suspect it's an effort to bring its existing WP7 ecosystem into the Windows8 Kernel fold.

Windows 8 RT as a tablet OS is kind of the bastard step child designed for those who don't care about backwards compatibility. Windows 8 x86 is going to be just as fast and battery efficient but most likely cost a small premium in the short term.

And going forward it will run all of the same applications so if you were to buy a Windows RT Tablet you could later switch to Windows 8 without any penalty or loss of data/applications.

Re:The insane insistence on "Windows" (1)

assassinator42 (844848) | more than 2 years ago | (#39765335)

You won't be able to run any non-Metro apps not written by Microsoft.
Apparently they won't even let you run command line .NET apps that aren't tied to any specific architecture.

Re:The insane insistence on "Windows" (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#39765307)

The largest advantage of a Windows Tablet is that everything just works. You can run Starcraft if you feel like it.

So you're saying that Starcraft will run on Windows RT? MS specifically says this will not happen unless Blizzard goes back and rewrites it using .NET. This applies to all legacy x86 software. If Windows RT does not have the advantage of running legacy apps why did they need to make Windows desktop fit RT? A consumer seeing Windows 8 on desktop will only be more confused that their legacy apps will not run on their tablet as not only do they are "Windows" but also the metro UI is the same.

Re:The insane insistence on "Windows" (2)

symbolset (646467) | more than 2 years ago | (#39765333)

These obvious advantages haven't amounted to a successful Windows tablet for the last 17 years, when they've been available and not sold well the whole time. What makes this new one different?

Re:The insane insistence on "Windows" (1)

arkhan_jg (618674) | more than 2 years ago | (#39765281)

Yet MS felt that they needed to spend development to shove the tablet model into Windows and label it as Windows 8. If MS focused on creating a new OS just for the tablet, they might have worked out all the enterprise features instead.

The problem for them doing that is that they'd be a third entrant to the market, with an even more dominant leader - the iPad - to beat than they face in the smartphone market. And we've all seen how that's working out for them. Their biggest problem is the lack of killer apps. Well, that and the memory of the stinker windows mobile 6.5. And they're bleeding users to macbook airs, ipads, iphones, and android phones. The fat desktop is in slow decline, and more and more people are realising they don't need office, or even a PC.

They don't have time for windows tablet to hang around in the market for a couple of years, and only pick up a single digit userbase. Not unless they want to continue their slide into irrelevence.

So windows 8 is a bold/suicidal move. They're working on the basis that by using their many millions of current desktop users as a trojan horse to get the windows app store - and metro apps - out there very widely, they'll attract developers to metro, and get some real killer apps which will then give people a reason to actually WANT a windows 8 tablet or phone. That windows 8 sucks pretty hard for desktop users doesn't really matter, as they'll buy whatever comes pre-installed on their OEM computer, and as long as it runs their current apps, they'll live with it.

The ipad and iphone is demonstrating that IT isn't in charge of corporate devices any more. Management bring whatever random consumer shit in they like, and it's IT problem to change the network to make it work like 'it does at home'. And once the managers have them, they're 'cheap' to get for workers too, instead of desktop upgrades. Only nerds care about feature lists any more, it's ease of use and shiny shiny that's all important now.

Microsoft can see the writing on the wall, and are desparate to get metro out as far as possible, as wide as possible, in the hope that that will stem the tide and keep them relevant 5 years from now. It's gutsy, I've gotta give them that.

what kind of retard uses windows (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39764667)

cubicle dwelling slobs, that's who

what do you want to manage in the first place (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39764703)

A tablet is meant as a terminal front end to a cloud based application .. what is it you would like to manage on it in the first place. The software environment is reasonably secure it took quiet a while for the iPad2 to get hacked maybe the iPad3 will not be hqcked until the end of that products lifecycle. That secure software environment is not managed by your it dept but by Apple. Think of these devices as dumb terminals. Oh I can hear you say I want to manage things like email or the calendar app etc. These apps should be managed by you on the cloud and again the tablet only used as a browsing front end.

Re:what do you want to manage in the first place (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 2 years ago | (#39765241)

A tablet is meant as a terminal front end to a cloud based application .. what is it you would like to manage on it in the first place.

Speaking from the Enterprise environment, I can name three things right off...

1) prevent users from parking games on my work tablets.
2) lock down where users go with the web browser on the tablet to just those sites I want them to go.
3) do those first two things without having to go nuts with subnets, or custom proxy settings, or having to go crazy modifying my network - because if I have to do any of that, I may as well just get them iPads.

why.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39764733)

Why would my phone need to logon to the company domain or have group policies? Are not samba and VPN enough?

Re:why.... (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | more than 2 years ago | (#39765009)

Why not? why differentiate between clients? your pocket computer(phone) is jsut as valid a computer as a desktop as far as the network is concerned. Dont you think that at some point your 'phone' is going to be your only computer that you carry with you and then dock with at work and home?

woa has domain trusted not domain joined (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39764743)

This was explained in brads key note at mms

It's part of consumerization of it and the move from enforcement toward governance

FTFY (1)

hobarrera (2008506) | more than 2 years ago | (#39764765)

'I think you can take Windows RT off the table.'

FTFY

But the iPad can't either! (2, Interesting)

wjsteele (255130) | more than 2 years ago | (#39764779)

The fact that the Win RT based devices can't join a domain doesn't matter. In fact, the iPad has never been able to join one and it doesn't seem to be a problem with them. Corporate infrastructures are adapting to support the comsumer based devices being brought in by employees... it's just a simple fact. Corporations save a lot of money when they don't have to buy their employees devices, so the trade offs are worth it.

Bill

Re:But the iPad can't either! (4, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#39764805)

The fact that the Win RT based devices can't join a domain doesn't matter. In fact, the iPad has never been able to join one and it doesn't seem to be a problem with them.

I think you miss the point. Why buy a Windows tablet if it doesn't have the Windows features that you're used to?

If a Windows tablet is no easier to integrate into your business than an iPad, why not just buy an iPad?

Re:But the iPad can't either! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39765171)

Exactly. To compete with the iPad, Microsoft needed something the iPad couldn't do. Join a domain? Nope, can't do that. Run Windows programs you already use? Nope, can't do that. Two easy to describe things that would've appealed to IT departments and users respectively, and it can do neither of them. There's no reason not to just use the iPad, and many more reasons to use the iPad.

Why is anyone surprised? (4, Insightful)

Weaselmancer (533834) | more than 2 years ago | (#39764827)

Remember Windows Vista? Not finished. The finished version is called Windows 7.

This is Microsoft SOP. There is a shipping date, which shall be met. Functionality and bug fixes will be added later depending on what complaints they get in the press.

Re:Why is anyone surprised? (2)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 2 years ago | (#39764995)

Remember Windows Vista? Not finished. The finished version is called Windows 7.

This is Microsoft SOP. There is a shipping date, which shall be met. Functionality and bug fixes will be added later depending on what complaints they get in the press.

Um... did you not notice how many times Vista's "shipping date" got pushed back? It was four or five years later than initially intended [theregister.co.uk] !

Windows CE all over? (3, Interesting)

linebackn (131821) | more than 2 years ago | (#39764879)

It seems as if Windows 8 for ARM is simply turning in to another Windows CE. That is, it is a fork rather than a direct port of the Windows OS with many unique differences.

Back in the NT 4 days you could sit at a DEC Alpha machine and not even notice you were running on a different architecture until you tried to run an x86 executable. (Even then it could run 16-bit Windows 3.1 via an emulator that visually looked exactly the same as running a 16-bit program on NT 4 x86 and later there was FX32) The point is it had the same functionality as the other ports.

Re:Windows CE all over? (3, Interesting)

cnettel (836611) | more than 2 years ago | (#39764939)

Windows on ARM is far closer to Windows 8 than Windows CE ever was to NT. CE was a clean-slate implementation, maybe borrowing some NT code. Windows on ARM seems to be more similar to something aking to XP Home or Media Center Edition, with the extra twist of another architecture and an arbitrary group policy decision (it's nothing more, really) not to allow third-party binaries in the traditional Windows GUI (e.g. only Metro apps). It is even so that Win32 API calls will be allowed for some Metro apps, including web browsers, even on ARM.

So, in the end, it is a marketing and feature set decision. Apple has been successful with the walled-garden approach, and that's what Windows RT will be marketed as, with the slight bonus of offering the "real" Microsoft Office.

Airprint (1)

MicroSlut (2478760) | more than 2 years ago | (#39764899)

I will be happy if it simply allows LPR or SPM printing. Printing from an iPad sucks.

Re:Airprint (3, Interesting)

Cito (1725214) | more than 2 years ago | (#39765195)

yea printing from ipad or any ios device sucks

but once I jailbroke my ipod touch and my ipad and use the printing stack on cydia omg it's like night and day, I have 100% total control over printing and can print anything, even using my wireless canon pixma mp560 using the jailbreak app i can tell my canon to print double sided and set all the properties as if i were on my windows desktop adjusting them.

jailbroken idevices is where the real power is at, once i jailbroke my ipod touch and got the new bluetooth stack and program called airblue It gives me full control over the bluetooth in the device, where before apple would only let idevices speak with each other when it came to file transfer idevice to idevice and only specific bluetooth devices such as headsets and gps systems.

but with airblue from cydia on a jailbroken device you get full bluetooth control, I can transfer photos from my LG cell phone to my ipod touch via bluetooth, and can pair with any gps device or even use my cellphone as a gps device. I can also tether internet access using bluetooth now.

So if I'm not near any wifi hotspot, I can use my cellphone as a hotspot with bluetooth, connect my ipad or ipod touch to the cellphone via bluetooth jailbroken app and can use my cellphone as the hotspot to hop online and do whatever.

If apple unlocked their devices they'd be more popular and more powerful... There is no way in hell I'd stay with a walled garden idevice, they are shit on their own.

but jailbroken you can unlock full power of them, hell for fun I even compiled apache on my ipod and installed piratebox, so even when it's in my pocket people can connect to my ipod like a hot spot, they are automatically given a webpage with files they can download, google piratebox :)

Just doing what they always do (1)

maroberts (15852) | more than 2 years ago | (#39765091)

Rush out a bodged product to market and fix it in Service Pack 1.

Its purely business decision, nothing else (1)

ninjacut (1938862) | more than 2 years ago | (#39765239)

WOA is a tablet OS, and falls in line with remote managebility like Windows Phone, iOS or Android via their new updated Intune management software. Its all about driving the whole ecosystem forward, and leverage platforms. Its absolutely not a timing issue, if they have it on x86 it is not a big jump to recompile it on WOA. But understand, they now have an option to build a tighter platform WOA with no legacy baggage and it seems they have a well thought approach. Everything seems to be logical now, Microsoft always works better when cornered.

get over it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39765251)

When will we get over the idea that a product from a large company must have EVERYTHING in it plus some new features?

There is going to be a time when a large corporation has to be able to release a product that is iterated. The author does assume that all users of ARM will require domain support. Perhaps this is not the case. Perhaps things are able to move forward with Windows on ARM without the immediate need of enterprise networking support at this time.

OMG the author didn't write about all aspects of the Windows platform on ARM. The author should not have published the article!!!

Might be a different model... (1)

Junta (36770) | more than 2 years ago | (#39765285)

As much as I'd like to imagine MS bumbling a release, I'd wager this is intentional. I also don't think of it as an 'enterprise' v. 'consumer' play. As some has pointed out, there is little reason to believe it couldn't be trivially carried over from the x86 codebase, but MS may not see it as relevant to the way a tablet would likely work, even in an enterprise scenario.

AD is built upon a strategy that was explicitly designed for fixed position systems in a corporate environment, owned by a company, logging into resources managed centrally by one coherent team, and to some extent potentially shared/interchangeable amongst employees. Back in the mid 90s when MS designed their implementation of domains, the world was a lot different. Even in the current reality of people with travelling laptops already feels very awkward, though it is serviceable. In an environment where resources spend at least as much time outside as in, where increasingly companies are getting employees to volunteer personally owned equipment instead of company issued equipment, where rarely does more than one person ever use a particular system, where people are often authenticating to multiple companies during the course of their work, and management is increasingly decentralized, active directory value significantly erodes.

It may be the case that MS recognizes the concept of a system 'joining an AD domain' as ill-fitting of the usage model. Joining a domain requires the 'system' be authenticated, to facilitate the case of the system to provide others service independent of user. This just doesn't happen with tablets and is unlikely to happen with tablets (after all, they are suspended unless a user is pretty much actively engaged and they are pretty much consume-only type devices). Maintaining the concept of the user and the user's system as independent just doesn't have practical benefit.

Of course, as a strategy this is certainly dubious. Even if it is a bad idea, MS has a lot of mindshare of companies without much vision in this regard. Those companies are a gold mine for companies like MS.

The Enterprise (2)

mr_lizard13 (882373) | more than 2 years ago | (#39765369)

It seems to me that the a key goal was to get battery life decent and keep the weight [of devices] down.'

And that's exactly what the priorities should be for portable devices.

His analysis on RT's chance of success: 'I think you can take Windows RT off the table for enterprises,' he said."

Why? Apple's iPad doesn't support the feature set that Cherry describes either, and yet it's become the fastest growing tablet in the enterprise. In fact, it's the only tablet device with any traction in that space at all. Something like 60% of the Fortune 500 have deployed iPad or have a deployment plan in the trial stages. When did that last happen with a piece of technology less than 2 years old?

There are plenty of reasons why I think Microsoft's efforts in tablets won't be successful, but the iPad's success has shown that not supporting a core Windows feature set needn't be one of them.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>