Windows 8 RT DOA?

Started Jan 22, 2013 | Discussions
Brian Miller
Regular MemberPosts: 416
Like?
Re: Windows OS that won't attach to a domain - ridiculous
In reply to brn, Jan 26, 2013

brn wrote:

You're correct that RT Pro does solve the problem, kind of.

If "kind of" = "completely" since you were talking about Domain Join as a deal-breaker.

Let's start by ignoring phones. With current devices, RT Pro requires what's effectively a laptop (with tablet-like functionality). If users would use such devices in lieu of a laptop, fine. Users aren't pushing me in that direction. They'd like a tablet (or smartphone) in addition to whatever else they use. Justifying a $1000+ tablet is not a battle I'm willing to take on, much less a phone.

Well, if you can get by with an IPad or Android that doesn't have Domain Join either and is far from laptop functionality ...

Even if the articles were correct, they don't match perception. MS has a tremendous opportunity to become dominate in the business tablet/phone market by leveraging their existing infrastructure and management capabilities. Failing to do so greatly diminishes their attractiveness to business. Instead, they choose to go head on with the established, and respected, players (Apple / Google) in the consumer market. That's a tough road.

Are you referring to the IPad and Nexus consumer tablet market?

RT obviously has its limitations but at least it's a computer, runs Office (for free) and has a long battery life. The Surface Pro blows away anything short of a MacBook Air, which isn't even a tablet and doesn't have a touchscreen.   The comments here are interesting:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57561189-37/suppliers-hint-at-changes-to-macbook-air-digitimes/

I don't know what phones have to do with this, I'm interested in a real computer in an advanced tablet format  that costs maybe a few hundred more than a top-of-the-line IPad and offers so very much more.

-- hide signature --

Digital Photography Links, D3/D300/D3x/D700 Reviews and Info: http://www.psyche.com/psyche/links/miscellaneous2.html#D3_D300

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
CAcreeks
Senior MemberPosts: 6,210
Like?
Interoperability of Office etc.
In reply to Lyle Aldridge, Jan 26, 2013

Lyle Aldridge wrote:
I have yet to find a program on any platform that actually does that. Libre Office, for example, butchers the documents my assistants at work create in ant version of Word.

What do you mean, "ant" version of Word? Any?

Personally I have no problems opening Word 2003 and 2007 DOC files in OpenOffice, and no problem reading Word 2007 DOC files in LibreOffice (didn't tried 2003, LibreOffice is too new). My wife complains that OpenOffice does not support IPA symbols. That's the int'l phonetic alphabet, not beer! So she bought a copy of Office.

Also I have no problem switching Excel and OpenOffice spreadsheets back and forth, although I can see that Excel has more features, especially for resizing column width.

Sorry I can't answer your question about swapping RT and Intel MS Office objects.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Jim Cockfield
Forum ProPosts: 14,480
Like?
Re: Surface non-RT costs $900
In reply to Brian Miller, Jan 26, 2013

Brian Miller wrote:

Jim Cockfield wrote:

Brian Miller wrote:

I only dropped into this one because someone needed to correct Jim's FUD about Office.

I didn't notice your post asking me for a source earlier. Can you use Google?

Yeah, that's where I found the article that refuted your FUD. Did you read it? If you think that Office Home/Student/RT is "very scaled down" you've never used Office and don't know how it's commonly used, as pointed out by Archer66. Of course they deleted some minor features used by very few people in the Home/Student market. Haven't you noticed, RT is aimed at the IPad segment which doesn't have anything near the "very scaled down" version of one of (if not the) most commonly used productivity program in existence.

I'm not sure what your intention is here.

I'm simply pointing out that there is no appreciable benefit of using Microsoft RT because of Office, since the version of Office available for Windows RT is stripped of features that distinguish Office from competing products (Macros, Add-ins, VB scripts, etc.), as I pointed out earlier (and as Microsoft's own Product page about it confirms).

So, I don't understand why you'd continue to defend it, unless you have some motive to do so Personally, I don't own any Microsoft Stock or work for a company providing products for Windows. So, I have no reason to "plug ti".

IOW,, I see zero benefit of using Microsoft RT versus competing tablet Operating Systems that run on ARM based platforms (IOS, Android, etc.).

You've been on an anti-Microsoft campaign for months; what's the point? You really think you're going to get people to switch to Linux?

Yes, I use Linux most of the time.

But, whether or not users switch to Linux or not does not impact my finances. In contrast, some of the posters I've seen in the forums here have a financial interest in the success of Windows, which I consider to be spam (for example, I've seen Microsoft Manager level employees "plugging" Windows in the past, even though they did not make any attempt to identify themselves as Microsoft employees)

To be frank, that ticks me off, as I consider it to be forum spam (using the forums for commercial purposes to promote the company they work for).

Likewise, employees of software companies that promote Windows without identifying themselves as such really ticks me off, because their posts are obviously "slanted" to promote products that they make money from. Again, I consider that to be Spam.

I use both Microsoft Windows 7 and Linux on my desktops and laptops, in multi-boot configurations.

Now, I don't deny that I have been a bit angry at Microsoft from to time. For example, I've experienced issues with their so called Windows Genuine Advantage code that resulted in the OS telling me I was not running a Genuine version of Windows after a failed Service Pack update on my wife's Dell laptop running Vista (even though Windows was factory installed by Dell, and previous Service Pack updates installed without any issues).

I've seen similar issues with an older Desktop running XP too.

As a result, after wasting far too much time on resolving the problems, I simply wiped the drives and eliminated Windows from them entirely.

I'm not the only user that's had those types of issues with Windows.. So, yea, I don't like the way Microsoft has "botched" those types of things in the past

But, despite those types of issues with Vista and earlier Windows releases, I think Window 7 is a pretty decent Operating System, even though I rarely use it (mostly just for testing Camera Manufacturer’s Software, since i help out with Camera Reviews from time to time for another review site).

Microsoft has done a very good job at focusing on security and usability with Windows 7, as opposed to earlier Operating Systems.

But, Windows 8 RT (and Windows 8 for x86 platforms for that matter) is a different story.

Microsoft Surface is just not competitive. It's overpriced compared to tablets running Android, and I stand by my comments about Office for Windows RT (which is what some posters seem to think makes Windows RT worth the price),.

Sorry, I disagree, as there are competing products for Android that work just fine for the vast majority of users, and you can find nice hardware for Android at a lower price point.

Windows 8 RT appears to be DOA if you look at reported trends for manufacturer production (with Microsoft cutting orders for tablets significantly according to some of the articles I've seen).

Samsung, HP and Toshiba have also "nixed"(or postponed until convinced otherwise) their plans to make tablets using Windows RT.

IOW, from what I can see on the surface (pun intended), Windows RT is DOA (hence why I started this thread for discussion about it).

-- hide signature --

JimC

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
malch
Forum ProPosts: 10,433
Like?
Re: Windows OS that won't attach to a domain - ridiculous
In reply to Brian Miller, Jan 26, 2013

Brian Miller wrote:

I don't know what phones have to do with this, I'm interested in a real computer in an advanced tablet format that costs maybe a few hundred more than a top-of-the-line IPad and offers so very much more.

I think smartphones have shown (most) people they don't need/want a "real computer" for their mobile needs. iOS and Android do what they need but do suffer from the small screen. Hence the interest in tablets.

Now, I do understand where you're at. If I was doing a lot of travel, I might be interested in a "real computer" with the tablet profile for myself. Having said that I'm not convinced it offers anything compelling that I don't have with my existing Win 7 laptop.

On the other hand, my wife and kids are totally happy with iOS for their mobile needs. They have no interest in a "real computer" for mobile and I think they're probably much more representative of the market today.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
CAcreeks
Senior MemberPosts: 6,210
Like?
Surface Pro battery life 4.5 hours
In reply to Brian Miller, Jan 26, 2013

Brian Miller wrote:

The Surface Pro blows away anything short of a MacBook Air, which isn't even a tablet and doesn't have a touchscreen.

What would be "short of" a Macbook Air, an Android tablet? Let's compare the Surface Pro to a similarly priced Mac.

  • Surface 10.6" screen, Macbook Air 13" screen
  • Surface text hard to read, Macbook Air legible
  • Surface plastic key film, Macbook Air nice keyboard
  • Surface only microSD, Macbook Air standard SD
  • Surface Pro battery 4.5 hours, Macbook Air 7 hours
  • Surface weight 907 grams, Macbook Air 1350 grams
  • Metro interface colorful but immature, vs Mac OS X

So the choice would be easy for me, if I wanted a device without DVD drive, which I don't.

Seems like an Ultrabook may be just as good as the Surface Pro, but I am not following this category closely. Somebody just posted about a new Atom-based Lenovo.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Brian Miller
Regular MemberPosts: 416
Like?
Re: Surface non-RT costs $900
In reply to Jim Cockfield, Jan 26, 2013

Burying them with another long-form post, distracting from the issues,

Jim Cockfield wrote:

I'm not sure what your intention is here.

I'm simply pointing out that there is no appreciable benefit of using Microsoft RT because of Office, since the version of Office available for Windows RT is stripped of features that distinguish Office from competing products (Macros, Add-ins, VB scripts, etc.), as I pointed out earlier (and as Microsoft's own Product page about it confirms).

It's clear you are not responding to new information or information that conflicts with your agenda. Have you used Office in a business or student/home environment? No? Then perhaps you aren't the best person to inform us about its functionality (read the other responses to you from people who have). As for RT itself, here's another respected reviewer who disagrees with you:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2012/10/28/4-things-you-probably-dont-know-about-microsofts-surface-rt/

"At present, there seems to be a stigma surrounding Windows RT and Microsoft’s Surface. That stigma centers around the misconception that the “dumbed down” operating system and the flagship hardware designed around it lacks the means for true productivity. After purchasing a Surface (with personal funds) and spending the entire weekend with it, I’m here to tell you that’s simply not true. Here are 4 things curious consumers need to know before writing off the Surface RT."

So, I don't understand why you'd continue to defend it, unless you have some motive to do so Personally, I don't own any Microsoft Stock or work for a company providing products for Windows. So, I have no reason to "plug it".

That's a pretty sleazy innuendo and a poor substitute for better argument. No, I'm not an employee of Microsoft or a shareholder.. Why don't you write the Forbes guy and ask the same question, since you "don't understand why (anyone would) continue to defend it?" Or maybe you could use Google and look around yourself.

You don't realize you are coming across as an extreme Linux ideologue on a multi-month anti-MS campaign?

-- hide signature --

Digital Photography Links, D3/D300/D3x/D700 Reviews and Info: http://www.psyche.com/psyche/links/miscellaneous2.html#D3_D300

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Jim Cockfield
Forum ProPosts: 14,480
Like?
Look in the mirror
In reply to Brian Miller, Jan 26, 2013

Brian Miller wrote:elf.

You don't realize you are coming across as an extreme Linux ideologue on a multi-month anti-MS campaign?

Perhaps you don't realize that you're coming across as a Microsoft Zealot, calling my posts about lack of features like macros and add-ins in Office for Windows RT as FUD, even though Microsoft's own product page specifically mentions those features are missing in Office for Windows RT (along with many others)

A quick read of the many articles about Office for Windows RT would make that kind of thing very obvious (a lot of features in Office for Windows Desktop versions were stripped out of Office for Windows RT).

Yet, you wanted to know the source, calling my post about it FUD, when Microsoft's own product page has a long section devoted to missing features in Office for Windows RT.

IOW, I'd suggest looking n the mirror before throwing stones at others.

-- hide signature --

JimC
------

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Brian Miller
Regular MemberPosts: 416
Like?
Re: Surface Pro battery life 4.5 hours
In reply to CAcreeks, Jan 26, 2013

CAcreeks wrote:

What would be "short of" a Macbook Air, an Android tablet? Let's compare the Surface Pro to a similarly priced Mac.

  • Surface 10.6" screen, Macbook Air 13" screen
  • Surface text hard to read, Macbook Air legible
  • Surface plastic key film, Macbook Air nice keyboard
  • Surface only microSD, Macbook Air standard SD
  • Surface Pro battery 4.5 hours, Macbook Air 7 hours
  • Surface weight 907 grams, Macbook Air 1350 grams
  • Metro interface colorful but immature, vs Mac OS X

So the choice would be easy for me, if I wanted a device without DVD drive, which I don't.

Seems like an Ultrabook may be just as good as the Surface Pro, but I am not following this category closely. Somebody just posted about a new Atom-based Lenovo.

That does look interesting, though apparently only 32-bit Windows.

http://www.lenovo.com/products/us/tablet/thinkpad/thinkpad-tablet-2/

Text hard to read?

http://www.theverge.com/2013/1/9/3857076/microsoft-surface-pro-in-depth-impressions

"Surface Pro has a gorgeous 10.6-inch ClearType Full HD Display that outputs a 1920 x 1080 resolution. I say it's gorgeous because this display is unprecedented on this type of device. Text reproduction and colors were spot on and viewing angles were great for tablet use."

Keyboard?

http://reviews.cnet.com/microsoft-surface-pro/

"The Surface Pro connects to monitors and outputs at resolutions beyond 1080p, and you can add Bluetooth and USB 3 peripherals like mice, keyboards, and external hard drives."

Metro immature?  True, but are you comparing MacOS X to Metro, or Windows 8, which is one click away, and hardly immature in comparison?

Here's more info:

http://blogs.wsj.com/cio/2013/01/24/microsoft-wooing-cios-with-surface-pro/

http://readwrite.com/2013/01/10/hands-on-with-microsofts-impressive-surface-pro-tablet

-- hide signature --

Digital Photography Links, D3/D300/D3x/D700 Reviews and Info: http://www.psyche.com/psyche/links/miscellaneous2.html#D3_D300

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Brian Miller
Regular MemberPosts: 416
Like?
Re: Look in the mirror
In reply to Jim Cockfield, Jan 26, 2013

Jim Cockfield wrote:

Yet, you wanted to know the source, calling my post about it FUD, when Microsoft's own product page has a long section devoted to missing features in Office for Windows RT.

In the original reply, I provided a respected, published, source that refuted your misinformation, directly, that Office RT is "very scaled down."

You produce (eventually) an MS product page that basically (for anyone who has used Office -- unlike you --- including several people who have responded to you here and  have pointed out) refutes your claim of Office being "very scaled down."   Yet you persist, without addressing what people are telling you and what respected sources are reporting.  A real reference would be a respected professional reviewer who agreed with you, and there are none.

IOW, I'd suggest looking n the mirror before throwing stones at others.

And then you accuse me of being a paid shill  or investor in Microsoft.  A good-faith argument would address these points honestly, instead of dodging and repeating, over and over, a view that only you hold.

-- hide signature --

Digital Photography Links, D3/D300/D3x/D700 Reviews and Info: http://www.psyche.com/psyche/links/miscellaneous2.html#D3_D300

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
brn
brn
Senior MemberPosts: 2,661Gear list
Like?
Re: Windows OS that won't attach to a domain - ridiculous
In reply to Brian Miller, Jan 26, 2013

Brian Miller wrote:

I don't know what phones have to do with this, I'm interested in a real computer in an advanced tablet format that costs maybe a few hundred more than a top-of-the-line IPad and offers so very much more.

This is where we differ.  You're talking about what you want.  If RT works for you, I've no issue with that.  I'm interested in how to provide my users with mobile access (which includes smartphones) to resources and how I'm going to manage the access while maintaining compliance and cost effectiveness.  With our significantly different viewpoints, it's not surprising that we don't agree.

 brn's gear list:brn's gear list
Canon PowerShot SD4000 IS Nikon D70 Nikon D90 Nikon D7000
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Archer66
Senior MemberPosts: 2,294
Like?
Re: Look in the mirror
In reply to Jim Cockfield, Jan 26, 2013

Jim Cockfield wrote:

IOW, I'd suggest looking n the mirror before throwing stones at others.

ROFLOL, thank you for making my day even I have to clean my keyboard now.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Archer66
Senior MemberPosts: 2,294
Like?
Re: Look in the mirror
In reply to Brian Miller, Jan 26, 2013

Brian Miller wrote:

Jim Cockfield wrote:

Yet, you wanted to know the source, calling my post about it FUD, when Microsoft's own product page has a long section devoted to missing features in Office for Windows RT.

And then you accuse me of being a paid shill or investor in Microsoft. A good-faith argument would address these points honestly, instead of dodging and repeating, over and over, a view that only you hold.

+1

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Lyle Aldridge
Contributing MemberPosts: 557
Like?
Re: Interoperability of Office etc.
In reply to CAcreeks, Jan 26, 2013

CAcreeks wrote:

Lyle Aldridge wrote:
I have yet to find a program on any platform that actually does that. Libre Office, for example, butchers the documents my assistants at work create in ant version of Word.

What do you mean, "ant" version of Word? Any?

Yes, I meant "any." Another reason for disliking the "new" version of these forums - the loss of that "edit" link. I get documents from others that were created in 2002, 2007 and 2010 versions of Office.

Personally I have no problems opening Word 2003 and 2007 DOC files in OpenOffice, and no problem reading Word 2007 DOC files in LibreOffice (didn't tried 2003, LibreOffice is too new). My wife complains that OpenOffice does not support IPA symbols. That's the int'l phonetic alphabet, not beer! So she bought a copy of Office.

Also I have no problem switching Excel and OpenOffice spreadsheets back and forth, although I can see that Excel has more features, especially for resizing column width.

Sorry I can't answer your question about swapping RT and Intel MS Office objects.

My main problem is with Word's .doc and .docx files. My assistants have no difficulty (at least that they've mentioned) with documents I prepare working at home in Libre Office. But the "hotdoc" documents they produce from mine or on their own contain several features, including line numbering and some logo images that need to be precisely placed in the first-page header and in margins of succeeding pages. I have yet to find another program that can handle those features at all.  Occasionally, I also note that font changes in the documents they prepare show up in strange places when I'm using Libre Office. They prepare a document that has an italicized sentence in Times New Roman, for example, and LO opens it with a monospace font that appears in the middle of the preceding paragraph. What they then get back from me is a mess that takes hours to correct, so I have now learned to use only Word in working on their product.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
nofumble
Senior MemberPosts: 1,210
Like?
Yep
In reply to DVT80111, Jan 26, 2013

Only $20 difference with 2X more storage, software compatibility guarantee, faster. It's a no brainier choice. I think that is why Lenovo/HP has decided to stop making the RT version.

But do Microsoft care? 99% of their money is made on x86. Everything else ended up in a "toilet flush"

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
dradam
Senior MemberPosts: 2,595
Like?
Re: Interoperability of Office etc.
In reply to Lyle Aldridge, Jan 26, 2013

Lyle Aldridge wrote:

CAcreeks wrote:

Lyle Aldridge wrote:
I have yet to find a program on any platform that actually does that. Libre Office, for example, butchers the documents my assistants at work create in ant version of Word.

What do you mean, "ant" version of Word? Any?

Yes, I meant "any." Another reason for disliking the "new" version of these forums - the loss of that "edit" link. I get documents from others that were created in 2002, 2007 and 2010 versions of Office.

Just so you know, the ability to edit is still there, it's just hidden under "More Options".

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
CAcreeks
Senior MemberPosts: 6,210
Like?
Re: Yep (Lenovo Atom, RT dead)
In reply to nofumble, Jan 26, 2013

nofumble wrote:

Only $20 difference with 2X more storage, software compatibility guarantee, faster...

But do Microsoft care? 99% of their money is made on x86. Everything else ended up in a "toilet flush"

Why did Microsoft bother porting Windows to the ARM platform if they don't care about it?

The Surface RT has almost twice the battery life of the Surface Pro. This is a big deal if e.g. you are crossing the Pacific ocean on a business flight. Trains have AC outlets, but planes do not. Once the battery is dead you will be bored until you get there.

I might be interested in a Surface RT if it had a real SD slot, and I could figure out a way to transfer DVD movies to SD cards. I am not interested in a Surface Pro, with only 4.5 hours battery life. That's not much better than my Dell laptop.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
malch
Forum ProPosts: 10,433
Like?
Re: Yep (Lenovo Atom, RT dead)
In reply to CAcreeks, Jan 26, 2013

CAcreeks wrote:

Trains have AC outlets, but planes do not.

That's changing. Some do. Many, if you're in first or business.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
DVT80111
Senior MemberPosts: 1,248Gear list
Like?
Re: Yep (Lenovo Atom, RT dead)
In reply to CAcreeks, Jan 26, 2013

CAcreeks wrote:

I am not interested in a Surface Pro, with only 4.5 hours battery life. That's not much better than my Dell laptop.

yes the Surface Pro with core i5 has only 4.5 hrs battery life, but it is not a fair comparison. Maybe next generation Core i5 will.

One should compare the Surface RT with the Acer or Lenovo Win8 Tablet using an Atom chip.  The Atom tablet has commanding lead in performance, yet has longer battery life than the Surface.

Inside the Lenovo ideatab keyboard dock, there is an additional battery. This gives you a total of 16 hrs. How long is your flight?

 DVT80111's gear list:DVT80111's gear list
Sony RX100 Canon EOS 550D Fujifilm X-E1 Canon EOS 70D
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
nofumble
Senior MemberPosts: 1,210
Like?
Almost a million sold
In reply to DVT80111, Jan 30, 2013

http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20130129PD216.html

Another million is on store shelf waiting for a $99 dollar deal offer.:-P

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads