Dell Warned Microsoft Over Windows RT Branding, Claims Dell Executive

32

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

ShyLinuxGuy

I can sympathize with the suggestion of ditching the Windows branding for RT. So many people are going to get schooled when they buy RT devices...they'll wonder why this program or that program won't run and then realize that it's because it's not really "Windows"...not the x86 Windows they've used up until then, but ARM "Windows".

I dunno, MS should have named Windows RT 'Involve' or something, since it involves your fingers, lol? I really think there should have been a specific release of two different versions of Windows: maybe Standard for conventional desktops/notebooks which would build on Windows 7 and Touch Optimized for tablet/touch devices, having the new Metro, er...Windows 8 UI interface. RT should have been out of the question, if not disassociated with Windows nomenclature as Clarke suggested to Ballmer.

Ballmer, you think that the dialogue from other CEOs and industry experts are possibly suggesting that this whole Windows 8 thing was a bad ordeal from the beginning?

avatar

RUSENSITIVESWEETNESS

I think all that blow has Ballmer out of his fucking mind.

avatar

TrollBot5000

Windows PT for Polished Turd because that's exactly what this is.

avatar

Refuge88

Windows x64
Windows x86 (Since its all 64bit now isn't it?)

Done?

I don't know I got stuck with 8 on my new laptop and I'm still debating on whether to get rid of it or not.

I want the future support for all of my DX11/12 and what not.

But that Charms bar... Everyime I see it... It makes me wanna punch someone... And the missing start button is really upsetting me too. I need to get windows Blinds and fast...

avatar

Granite

Seems to me Dell is being a bit schizo here.

On the one hand, they deem themselves to be important enough to presume to tell MS how they should be handling their business.

On the other hand, they admit that they are failures in all OS markets except for Windows.

They would be better served assisting MS in attempting to educate the idiot public who can't tell the difference between Win8 and WinRT or those twitiots who get confused when MS mentions "RT" when they talk about Windows. Honestly, they think MS is telling them to "retweet".

avatar

ahamling27

You have to educate them because it's impossible to "tell" the difference between the two. You have to know it and the idiot public doesn't research things before they buy them.

The problem is that they LOOK identical. That was a huge mistake by Microsoft and it's totally going to bite them in the ass. If they just made the UI look different there wouldn't be as much confusion, people could "tell the difference".

Dell was totally right and Microsoft is going to have a rough couple years ahead of them because of it.

avatar

RUSENSITIVESWEETNESS

You need to wipe your knees off. They're very dirty.

avatar

Granite

Screw you.

Dispute what I said or STFU.

avatar

Chewieshmoo

STFU DELL, you're still going to kiss MS ass and be it's bitch.....

avatar

TommM

Really dumb move on MS's part not to take Dell's advice on this. People hear "Windows" and to them, it means the OS they've been using since 1985. Then this shows up and all people can say is, "THIS is Windows??"

avatar

dgrmouse

Not to disagree, but 1985??? Seriously, nobody used Windows back then. I don't think Windows hit critical mass until 3.X. If memory serves, personal computers were generally sold with only MS-DOS until Windows 3 came out. Even MS Word (on PCs) was a DOS program until about that time.

avatar

1600w

hmmmm?? Windows 8 for PC
Windows Phone for phone
maybe
Windows Tablet for Tablets?

avatar

dgrmouse

Windows Tablet for Tablets would be even worse, since that doesn't unambiguously delineate between the incompatible ARM and Intel versions.

avatar

whr4usa

...and especially since it doesn't have to be put on tablets; any ARM-powered device with WHQL drivers will do

avatar

kitsunekaji

RT seems kind of fitting, since it is Windows, with features held back.
To hold back, is to retard. Pressing the brakes on a car, for example, retard it (keeps it from moving).
Therefore, they made Windows 8, then retarded it (held back features), then Windows RT seems like an appropriate name.
Maybe they could have written it differently, like Windows Rt?

Seriously though, Windows Tab or Touch may have worked better.

avatar

phoenixjc

I see where you are going with this. So really we should be calling Windows RT by it's full name; Windows, Retarded for Tablets.

avatar

limitbreaker

Or retarded windows for tablets?

avatar

theplustwo

I agree. The "RT" suffix is essentially meaningless, and is also confuses whether you're talking about the WinRT runtime or Windows on ARM. It's also confusing that Windows RT is a version of Windows 8 but doesn't have 8 in the name.

They should have called it Windows 8 - ARM Edition or Windows 8 - Device Edition or something and been more upfront from the start about the fact that it can't run legacy apps.

avatar

whr4usa

meaningless like "NT" ? "XP" ? years? 'i' in iOS..? every successful branding of technical things to uninformed consumer ever..?

Windows RT is NOT a 'version' of Windows 8, anymore than Windows Phone 8, XBox360 or Server 2012 is...they just have a highly-shared codebase!! BIG difference

Windows 8 ARM edition? because consumers know exactly what 'ARM' is and again, not version of 8!

device edition? because Windows 8 can't be on 'devices', that makes more sense! not.

avatar

theplustwo

Windows RT is not platform agnostic. It runs only on ARM architecture and is very much a version of Windows 8. It's exactly like Windows 8 except it can't run x86 applications.

The letters XP might not mean anything either, but XP didn't look and act exactly like Windows 2000 except for not being able to run any of the applications written for previous versions Windows.

Windows RT is misleading, not because of what the letters do or do not stand for, but because Microsoft gave no indication in their advertising that this version, which looks and acts exactly like Windows 8 Pro in all their advertising, is actually much more limited.

avatar

whr4usa

you're correct, Windows RT isn't platform agnostic and nobody has yet claimed that it could be or is - we're talking about developement platforms, not operating systems here

WinRT on the other hand (the new developement PLATFORM) IS platform agnostic ...you can write identical code in any supported language and have it run functionally identically on any operating system using the 6.2.920x codebase (Windows 8, Windows RT or Server 2012) and with only a slight repackaging also Windows Phone 8, XBox360 (...and with a lot more effort but still much less than say developing for multiple Android versions Windows Phone 7.8 and Zune HD or Windows 7 SP1 with "platform update")

Windows RT isn't "exactly like" Windows 8; sharing 75%-80%++ codebase and porting an identical product between ISA's are completely different and unrelated concepts

do you also have a problem with iOS not being able to run x86 apps..?
what about android and android x86 incompatabilities?
shouldn't Macintosh be able to run Windows programs natively too?

'RT' refers to 'RunTime' whereas XP suppossedly came from 'eXPerience' and NT has aklways been assumed to mean simply "New Technology" ...you tell me which name has more useful meaning?
Windows XP actually DID "look and act" exactly like Windows 2000 and was in fact unable to run many applications written for previously versions of windows properly specifically Windows 95 kernel-mode-exclusive applications (because of scheduler and timesharing changes) and NT 4 or earlier 'Win32-e' because of the incomplete 9.x subsystem which was never properly supported) and that's ignoring the incompatabilities of lower-level utilities that plagued windows client systems until Vista; to this day, any code properly written for vista sp1 can run on 8 unmodified and pretty much anything writen for 2003 on the server side can run on 2008 r2 unmodified (and 2012 if it doesn't dpeend on a gui or a feature or api that has been removed which a lot have - a godo thing!)

its limitations are your perspective only...it simply accomplisghes things in different ways...I think you know this or you'd not have chosen "Windows 8 Pro" instead of "Windows 8" for your comparison (their stated goal was that Windows 8 and Windows RT would be functionally equivalent ro as approximate as the distinct arhcitectures would allow and that Windows 8 Pro would include all of the innovations of the new codebase and maintain the featureset previously exclusive to Vista & 7's editions of Enterprise & Ultimate

avatar

theplustwo

"Wintercoder" claimed below that Windows RT it is platform agnostic, but the comment system only has one level of threading so it's not obvious that I was replying to that.

Anyhow, it's just the impression that I get, that regular folks don't understand the difference between Windows 8 and Windows RT (or even know that Windows RT exists, or that Surface and other devices running it can't run desktop applications), and it would have been nice for consumers if Microsoft had been more clear that Windows RT is effectively a limited version of Windows 8.

Your iOS comparisons don't really hold water because iOS looks completely different than Mac OS (or any other desktop operating system), and has a separate name and branding so there's no conception that iOS should be able to run all the same software as Mac OS. Apple also doesn't advertise the iPad as a "PC" like Microsoft does with Surface.

Windows RT includes the word Windows, has an identical logo, and the UI looks exactly the same as the new UI for Windows 8. I'm not surprised that people are confused by it. Combine that with Windows Phone 8 and people are really not sure which versions of Windows are compatible with which types of applications.

Really it stems from Microsoft insisting on calling everything Windows regardless of whether it really has anything to do with what most people would consider the Windows operating system.

I think Windows 8 is great and I have no interest in Apple's products, but I think it's safe to say that Apple has done a better job in this case of positioning their products so people know what they're getting if they buy a Macbook versus an iPad or iPhone or whatever.

I actually think Microsoft's strategy is more sound (having one application model across desktop and mobile devices) but I think they've not done a great job of communicating the differences between the different versions of the Windows OS.

As Wintercoder also said, it's likely that Microsoft is "blurring the message" on purpose, because they don't want people to think of Windows RT as limited or different from Windows 8. But that doesn't mean it's a good move from a consumer advocacy standpoint. If you buy a Surface because the ad calls it a PC and they say it "runs Windows," and meanwhile you've also seen a bunch of TV ads for Windows 8 that looks identical and say it runs all your desktop applications, you're likely going to be pretty disappointed when you get the Surface home and you can't install any desktop applications on it.

avatar

whr4usa

this is the most sane reply that you've made yet, with respect

wintercoder said the runtime, not "Windows RT was paltform agnostic which was in fact an accurate statement
("Windows RT") != ("Windows Runtime")

I don't disagree with your statemetns I just don't see how they matter...few people will care about switching programs as long as their data is preserved and effective functionality is maintained or increased (or percevied to be...this is why apple has made such massive inroads)

any company with a product protfolio as large as Msft's will always have a user education problem and any tech. company will too; Microsoft happens to be @ an unfrotunate crossroads of these 2 area (and most IT guys and enthusiasts don't help!!)

avatar

wintercoder

Isn't the whole point of WindowsRT to have application code bases that are platform agnostic? The WinRT api push is an effort to achieve that.

I think the effort IS to blur the message, and to get people to accept the three environments as functionally the same. From a marketing perspective, I think it's a smart move.

Its about time that Microsoft drives its own business instead of OEMs directing their success.

I think it funny how Dell criticizes Microsoft right on the heels of failing in a fragmented Android market.

avatar

dgrmouse

Wintercoder said, "Isn't the whole point of WindowsRT to have application code bases that are platform agnostic? The WinRT api push is an effort to achieve that."

No. MS could've engineered RT to be functionally identical to Windows 8. The whole point of RT is to test the waters of closed-garden design, where the ONLY source for applications is their store, which takes a fat cut of all software sold. Unfortunately, I can't produce a link to the original document, but I recall MS's developer information instructing vendors to generally set premium prices for the software that they offer through the MS Store. Why do you think that might be?

Wintercoder also said, "Its about time that Microsoft drives its own business instead of OEMs directing their success."

That's absurd. Love them or hate them, Microsoft has more facets than a bathtub filled with diamonds. They AGGRESSIVELY drive business with search, advertising, servers, development, training, databases, evangelism, press, and pretty much any other medium/service/outreach you can think of. That they bundle with every OEM is definitely a huge bonus, but by no means is it their only tactic.

avatar

whr4usa

with respect mouse, ARM's Instruction Set Archtiecture standards don't support or allow nearly what x86-64-bit does and there was no way they'd intorduce a new consumer platform without extreme securability given their experience with merging NT & DOS codebases, formally unifying the win32 subsystem across all Microsoft products

so wintercoder IS correct, the point of the WinRT APIset was to create an architecture-agnostic language-neutral with virtualization compatability, core resource management efficiency and defense-in-depth security engineered from the bottom up

Windows RT *is* "functionality identical" to Windows 8 if you step back and view it from an enterprise "user task" standpoint as opposed to "I can't use this particular program or theme because 't'sn't x86 or doesn't support standard x or format y"

also the Windows Store isn't an exclusive source for software...there's theoretically nothing to prevent say Amazon from creating an Amazon App Store app albeit within the windows store similar to purchasing from NewEgg in their Windows 8 app or how the win32 subsystem as a whole is treated as an app ...and that's igonring approved workarounds for businesses to sideload internal applications or apps that are signed with internal or enterprise-specific signatures (i.e. DoD glboal signing infrastructure) as oppossed to standard microsoft sotre or publicly-backed certificates and codesigning

also I would never label Microsoft as 'aggressive' especially compared to Apple, Cisco, Best Buy, Walmart, Google or facebook - they appear agressive in search because they're relatively new to the market and google was in the interesting position of having a near monopoly and simultaneously suffering from strategic weakness due to the proprietary nature of their search infrastructure (seeing as they invented most of it form scratch) and being spread so thin across too many projects to continue being commercially successful for long then surrendering its global reach by evacuating from the PRC and several other foriegn outposts making Bing the only truly global search engine... advertising is newer than search for them in that until very recently in business time terms they only advertised their own stuff and simply sold excess capacity or slots to partnered advertising firms; if developement was as big for them as you claim, there'd be a lot less insecure and stupid coding happening! yes, they practically control the developement of all languages and standards collectively with Red Hat, Intel, Oracle and IBM but as big as their developer business is in terms of quality and $$ it only makes a small dent in terms of marketshare or influence over finished products

that said sir, databases and training are definitely making huge comebacks as they rightfully should but I don't see how you can say "evangelism and press" are agressively driven business units of theirs because they're simply not... Microsoft didn't fire their marketing department and part of their legal team fro no reason haha

when it comes to the consumer market Microsoft has baically been @ mercy of OEMs

...how long do you think any technology firm can survive when the brands responsible for your ocntinued existence are names like Sony Lenovo Dell Acer...I know not everybody services OEM hardware on a weekly basis like I've the opportuntiy to do but do think about it ofr a moment

avatar

dgrmouse

whr4usa said, "

whr4usa said, 'Windows RT *is* "functionality identical" to Windows 8', "and that's igonring(sic) approved workarounds for businesses to sideload"

But that's simply not true. If I write a front-end for our company database to function as an abstraction layer with access controls, I can deploy it to Win 8 (desktop) users by dropping a link on their desktop. For WinRT users, I have to buy a special key at $30-60 USD per device with a $3,000 minimum and then sideload /through/ the app store. My argument is that MS manipulated the environment to usher in a new, and vastly more profitable, means of manipulating third-party software. That the end-user may not detect that the app. that cost zero dollars to deploy to their desktop cost thousands of dollars to bring to their tablet isn't really a factor in this case.

whr4usa said, "there's theoretically nothing to prevent say Amazon from creating an Amazon App Store"

Because all offerings will still have to be vetted by MS and MS will still receive a portion of their sales, what motivation would Amazon possibly have for doing so?

whr4usa said, "their search infrastructure (seeing as they invented most of it form scratch)" and "advertising is newer than search for them"

MS has been aggressively pursuing search and advertising for a VERY long time. They bought LinkExchange way back in 1998, they entered a bidding war for DoubleClick w/ Google, they bought Massive Inc. for in-game ad. delivery, and they have made a similarly large number of strategic moves in search tech. over a similar time-span.

whr4usa said, "I don't see how you can say "evangelism and press" are agressively (sic) driven business units of theirs because they're simply not..."
For well over a decade, MS has been going to schools around the country GIVING away operating systems and development environments to students. They show up on campus with free seminars, products, contacts, recruiters, and lots of swag. If that's not evangelism, I'm not sure what is.

Seriously, they don't bat 1,000, but there are a LOT of VERY smart folks working for MS in a lot of different capacities. If you perceive them as a simple company that writes a few software applications, then you would be absolutely shocked to learn all the things they're involved in.

avatar

whr4usa

addressing your points in reverse order, some of which you simply misunderstood what i stated previously

yes, they've had an equivalent program to the current DreamSpark Premium MSDNAA 'onthehub' etc. digital download systems forever; ...and if we're talking about a specific university campus from which they've recruited in the past successfully or in an metropolitan area or municipality in which they've got physical presence then you're absolutely correct but I can't remember when last schools were properly motivated to buy more inclusive packages for those programs or universities from which they don't actively recruit did anything more than host a tech net evangelist whom either knew nothing and simply did "technical marketing" or knew a lot but audience didn't, so spent entire time answering dumb questions which were clearly listed as prerequisite knowledge for attending . . . i don't deny they put forth efforts in those area but compared to the inroads sql or windows server have made over the past ~5 years, can you really say those are major sources of business..? they are not.

also you sort of made my point for me on search...how long have they been trying and how recently did Bing come to fruition and Microsoft become a top global online advertiser as oppossed to just another of many vendors offering but making no worth-mentioning revenue from it..?

"Because all offerings will still have to be vetted by MS and MS will still receive a portion of their sales, what motivation would Amazon possibly have for doing so?"
untrue...yes, their hypothetical app will still have to be 'vetted' in the sense it'll go through the highly-automated code-review process, like any app on any other platform besides win32 desktop or googleplay android apps would (this is even true of anything open-source by definition or commercially-backed linux distros if you think about it) and is a very low bar to climb.
Microsoft would not under any circumstances receive a portion of their sales, their store app could simply be free and 30% of $0 is $0 still, then it'd operate no differently than a precustomized portal to their website, a section of with was either only available or tailored for this hypothetical WinRT app and all of the sales could happen on Amazon's backend, using the inbuilt contracts and charms and permissions infrastructure to install another app alongside itself which in principle would be identical to the current NewEgg app combined with the contrapositive of the currently marketed ability to click a link on a standard webpage on any browser including on the desktop and begin downloading the associated app (assuming permission given)
there's nothing in the store guidelines and runtime licensing or other documentation related to prevent it

"But that's simply not true. If I write a front-end for our company database to function as an abstraction layer with access controls, I can deploy it to Win 8 (desktop) users by dropping a link on their desktop. For WinRT users, I have to buy a special key at $30-60 USD per device with a $3,000 minimum and then sideload /through/ the app store. My argument is that MS manipulated the environment to usher in a new, and vastly more profitable, means of manipulating third-party software. That the end-user may not detect that the app. that cost zero dollars to deploy to their desktop cost thousands of dollars to bring to their tablet isn't really a factor in this case."

what licensing documentation have you been reading? regardless of whether you're deploying to desktop or sideloading via store whether on 8 or earlier or Windows RT (there's no such thing as "WinRT users", WinRT is the developer platform common across all 6.2.9200 codebases, including Windows Phone 8 and the major fall 2012 platform update for xbox360) you still require the same access CALs as you would with any other device or AD account accessing windows or sql services and if you've got SA then Windows RT becomes free for all of that which makes Windows RT significantly cheaper to deploy in an enterprise unless you rely upon enhanced AD services or don't have an existing System Center or VDI deployment
no funds are collected by Msft when apps are sideloaded
...not sure where you're going with that last part about "users not detecting it"
frankly with the way Msft has been ignored by the stock market and the huge innovations they've made particularly with security I've no problem with them becoming more profitable or having code-vetting of third-party apps in-place
especially whn you consider how simple and affordable licensing has become with this genration across the board! well except for Office products haha
I never thought I'd ever say this but I love Msft licensing
I'd never have said that about any prior product from Redmond, though I may hve thought it once or twice about 7 clt

avatar

dgrmouse

@WHR: It is called a “sideloading product activation key”, and it incurs a per-unit fee with a minimum purchase of $3,000 USD. I'm not making this up (http://bit.ly/TxZq98).

The scenario you describe with Amazon offering a free "App Store" app still doesn't make sense, because MS is going to want a cut of any in-app purchases. One way or another, they're going to get paid for every application you buy for your RT tablet. Application developers aren't going to want to take a pay cut for Amazon's benefit when they could instead publish directly to the MS Store (assuming it gains sufficient traction to become a worthwhile target), and users aren't going to want to pay a premium to purchase through Amazon via MS with no benefit versus buying directly though MS.

avatar

whr4usa

i stand corrected on the sideloading, thank you for that information, last documentation i'd read had been released upon GA but was loosely based on prelease code still, originally was going to be free for SA or with VDA and just not available otherwise, atleast 't's more accessible for other scenarios now though... still a bummer... $3,000 still isn't massive for an organization unless you've got many less than 100 devices or/and users

in "my amazon scenario" it would not be an 'in-app' purchase it would be an e-commerce purchase on amazon's backend that just happens to be done through a WinRT app instead of a browser and then results in a linking to another app being downloaded . . . Microsoft might still get a cut of the new app in that scenario but other ways could be conceived (:

avatar

whr4usa

smart person!!

avatar

Peanut Fox

I think Dell critique only focus on the name Windows RT as it causes brand confusion. Easy to understand as it now falls on a lot of Microsoft's 3rd parties I.E. Dell to educate consumers.

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.