Confusion between Windows 8 and Windows RT

[kane4fire]

Some people may want to run 2007 instead of the version that comes with RT. More important, they may have other old Windows software that does not come with RT that they want to use. It's not the same as OS X not running on iPads, because Apple never made tablets that run OS X. What if Apple made an "iPad Pro" that did run OS X, but continued selling regular iPads that only run iOS? And the Pro and regular iPads looked exactly alike, until you tried to run OS X software on it?

The point of using an old version of Office is a silly one. The number of people who would actually do that is so miniscule, I doubt it would even be above 5%. But you're right, it should be a lot easier to figure out what runs on what, before you even touch one, and the two looking alike doesn't help.

I spent a while myself trying to figure it out so I made a chart to make it easier for anyone else:

Source: http://rashedtalukder.com/index.php/news/important/70-surface-rt-vs-pro-avoid-confusion-what-works

 

[k995]

Some people may want to run 2007 instead of the version that comes with RT.

Sure and some probably want the OSX version of numbers on an ipad.

The 2 persons who actually would want that have to buy the pro version then.

More important, they may have other old Windows software that does not come with RT that they want to use.

If there is a metro app then there is no problem.

It's not the same as OS X not running on iPads, because Apple never made tablets that run OS X. What if Apple made an "iPad Pro" that did run OS X, but continued selling regular iPads that only run iOS? And the Pro and regular iPads looked exactly alike, until you tried to run OS X software on it?

Again with the looks , again the difference is you think people are too stupid to realise there is a difference, I think the very vast mayority wll not make that mistake.

 

[MRU]

Again with the looks , again the difference is you think people are too stupid to realise there is a difference, I think the very vast mayority wll not make that mistake.

Analysts, bloggers, and those generally in the technology business all disagree with you and they do see the probable confusion between RT & Windows 8/Pro as a genuine issue/threat.

But of course.... you know better than the myriad of voices all echoing the same concern.

----------

I spent a while myself trying to figure it out so I made a chart to make it easier for anyone else:

Actually not all App Store applications/games will work on Windows RT so your chart is off a little. There will be a number of current and future PC titles that will now also be distributed via the App store, that are still not capable of running on the Arm architecture or that still require access to the desktop environment. So it's certainly not as clear cut as your chart makes it seem.

However those applications that don't work on RT devices won't appear in the App store on RT to avoid the prospect of RT users purchasing applications they can't utilise, but it still does mean not all Apps on the App store will be available for RT devices.

 

[ozaz]

The consumer confusion problem is entirely in the branding. WTH is Windows RT going to mean to the majority of people?

They can't drop Windows from the name because it is too valuable a brand, but they should have branded Windows RT as Windows 8 Modern and Windows 8 as Windows 8 Modern+Legacy.

That would put the issue of lack of support for legacy software and peripherals in Windows RT right at the forefront of consumer decision making and force store staff to understand what it meant.

 

[paulsalter]

IMO, i dont see this as being confusing at all for people

I have windows XP/Vista/7 at home on different machines

I dont buy an app that way it's for windows 7 and expect it to work on XP and then scream that it's confusing (all versions have the label Windows)

If I see an app that says Surface RT I don't assume it works on Pro and vice versa, I buy an app that says its for the version I have

If I see an app that says i requires Mountain Lion I dont buy it and scream when it doesn't work on Lion, should I really just look that it says OS X and assume it works on all versions

Is the population so stupid that they don't lack any common sense to check things out

 

[Irishman]

I think you're trying to shoehorn the MS tablet into the same category as a desktop and that's just not the case.

True with the X86 version of the surface you can run desktop apps and that's a huge plus, the RT will have the ability to run office and other MS apps but its still a tablet and most people understand that, they're not going to expect tablets to have the same capabilities, expandability and features of a desktop computer

And just how will consumers understand that??

 

[Technarchy]

The consumer confusion problem is entirely in the branding. WTH is Windows RT going to mean to the majority of people?

They can't drop Windows from the name because it is too valuable a brand, but they should have branded Windows RT as Windows 8 Modern and Windows 8 as Windows 8 Modern+Legacy.

That would put the issue of lack of support for legacy software and peripherals in Windows RT right at the forefront of consumer decision making and force store staff to understand what it meant.

It is 100% branding issue. The tablet and phone OS should not have been called Windows at all, or Metro.

Had MSFT called it Surface OS it would have alleviated the issued. And I would debate the value of the Windows brand outside of desktops and laptops.

 

[ozaz]

It is 100% branding issue. The tablet and phone OS should not have been called Windows at all, or Metro.

Had MSFT called it Surface OS it would have alleviated the issued. And I would debate the value of the Windows brand outside of desktops and laptops.

The issue I see with that is that it does not play to one of the key strengths of Windows 8/RT relative to OS X/iOS. That is that the majority of Windows store apps will run on both desktop and tablet devices. So, in general when you buy a Windows store app on your Win RT tablet, it will also work on your Windows 8 desktop, and vice versa. Also, I don't know if RT will always necessarily be restricted to tablets. AFAIK there will be nothing to stop a OEM from using Windows RT in desktops and laptops so there is not a clear tablet/desktop OS distinction.

So in my opinion including Windows in the name of both 8 and RT is a good thing in order to reflect the coherence of the ecosystem going forward. But the suffixes should be better than 8 and RT. They should reflect the fact that both support modern UI apps but only one has legacy support.

 

[kane4fire]

However those applications that don't work on RT devices won't appear in the App store on RT to avoid the prospect of RT users purchasing applications they can't utilise, but it still does mean not all Apps on the App store will be available for RT devices.

That's actually why I didn't put it in the chart. In this situation, I think less is more. This is made to be an at a glance guide. If they never see the app, how will they know that it isn't compatible?

 

[k995]

Analysts, bloggers, and those generally in the technology business all disagree with you and they do see the probable confusion between RT & Windows 8/Pro as a genuine issue/threat.

But of course.... you know better than the myriad of voices all echoing the same concern.

Not really as you dont know what "all" analysts bloggers,... think"

And even then I am perfectly capable of thinking for my own

 

[MRU]

Not really as you dont know what "all" analysts bloggers,... think"

And even then I am perfectly capable of thinking for my own

What you mean a bit like how you don't know what 'all' consumers think but seem to act like you do? ....

 

[k995]

What you mean a bit like how you don't know what 'all' consumers think but seem to act like you do? ....

I wrote "i think" you wrote " all disagree with you"

See the difference ? One is my opinion the other is a stated fact wich you dont have a clue about as you read only a very small amount of the people you describe.

 

[MRU]

I wrote "i think" you wrote " all disagree with you"

See the difference ? One is my opinion the other is a stated fact wich you dont have a clue about as you read only a very small amount of the people you describe.

Sorry, think that's a case of the pot calling the kettle black

 

[ReallyBigFeet]

Technically, MS is duplicating Apples model. Full OS (Win8) for the desktop/laptop market, scaled-down OS for tablets. And then there's Windows Phone (or Mobile, or whatever they call it now) but that's such a laughably small part of the phone OS market as to be totally irrelevant. Otherwise, even the App Store concept is the same, right down to the curated behaviors. Consumers adapted just fine to this model on Apple and likely will again with MS as well, although jury is still out whether or not it will be as successful and peer pressure (even when passive) does play a role in adoption of any given technology standard.

Whats important here is recognition that MANY iPad/iPhone users are already Windows users. Theyve already made the choice to live in a mixed ecosystem and it works just fine. Apps like Dropbox and cross-platform iTunes makes this possible. Given time, the same can be true for the Surface.

The big mistake, I think, is that they have WinRT for tablets and then something different for phones. That makes little sense to me given that both the Surface and a matching phone are native "peers" if you look at how people use their smartphones and tablets in the iOS and Android world today. Not treating them as peer devices for app support is the big miss here in my mind. But I suspect this has more to do with MS and their long and incestuous relationship with hardware makers. They only make money when they license software. Nonetheless, I think Microsoft's strategy is deeply flawed. They are treating the Surface as a scaled down laptop, whereas Apple treated the iPad like a scaled up iPhone. Its this "tablet as consumption device" model that Microsoft is missing, and instead are creating an overly-complex sales proposition. I think users are going to compare the Surface and Windows RT to iPad/iOS and the differences there will be significant from a usability perspective.

Regardless of the above, however, I think The Verge article is wrong. It's not that big of a problem for MS. Their market for Surface won't even think about the OS on there. They will just look at the pre-loaded apps (Email, browser, Office) and the App Store and make the comparison to the iPad. That's all.

I do now, however, understand why Office for iOS has been so long in coming.

 

[k995]

Sorry, think that's a case of the pot calling the kettle black

Sure you claiming you know all the opnions of all IT commentators is the same as someones OWN opinion.

 

[ozaz]

Technically, MS is duplicating Apples model.

I would disagree with that. The models seem clearly different and offer a nice choice for consumers.

Apple: Same OS and App Store for tablet and phone. Different for desktop/laptop.

Microsoft: The same OS (albeit in two flavours that principally differ in presence of legacy support) and App Store for tablet and desktop/laptop. Different for phone.

You allude to these differences in approach later in your post, so I don't really understand your contradictory statement quoted above.

In principle, I prefer the Microsoft one as I'd rather share apps across desktop and tablet than across tablet and phone, as well as have the option of a fully fledged OS in a tablet form. But I'm sure many others will, and do, prefer Apple's model. It's great that Microsoft have given us consumers a new option rather than just duplicating Apple's approach.

 

[435713]

Nevermind, found my answer.