Windows RT still misguided...
So, I read this post today on Twitter. And sadly, I have to say I disagree. I typically do agree with Paul Thurott and I typically agree with Microsoft's strategy. But for me, this argument is weak. Even weaker today than it was when I first criticized it.
Originally, I disagreed with Microsoft's stance not to try and run x86 applications, or even allow compiling desktop style applications on WinRT on the basis that they would run too slowly or ruin battery life or otherwise degrade the experience.
I don't disagree that this was absolutely true (in general) on 1st generation devices. And I don't doubt that examples still exist on 2nd generation devices. I do feel that there are a great many examples contrary to this even on 1st gen devices that have been proven out but the hacking community wherein Windows RT was basically hacked to get traditional x86 apps compiled for ARM running on the Surface and other such devices. The result of which was generally perceived to have greatly improved the value proposition of the device without anyone complaining about degraded experience. And that, I will repeat is on 1st gen hardware (Tegra 3). Second gen WinRT hardware brings substantial performance improvements and greatly increases the realm of what would run adequately on this hardware. Even if they had merely allowed for apps compiled for ARM to run on Windows Desktop by default I think it would have changed perceptions greatly.
Don't get me wrong. I have nothing wrong with the modern style apps. In fact, my stance has long been that Microsoft should have either forced JUST the modern UX down people's throat or treated that environment as a completely separated OS. They've given people a crutch in leaving the old desktop paradigm alive at all which in my opinion has probably helped drive a TON of the hate the modern UI receives. They shouldn't have put the name Windows on it at all. But this is all a side note. So continuing on...
On the other side of things of that article. I also disagree with the description of how Clover Trail processors deal with Windows 8.0/8.1 and the bleak outlook afforded them. I own an Acer W510 which is a Clover Trail tablet. It replaced my 1st gen Core I-3 notebook and frankly, I have never looked back. Is it slower than my old laptop? Sure. In daily use do I regularly notice that slow down? Nope. And that was a shock to me. The last time we owned something with the Atom moniker on it in this household it was so slow I wasn't sure if impatience or old age would kill me first.
I'm clearly not representative of the general populace. But I do think I stress a computer at least as much, if not more than the average user. I don't have Office installed on it. But I do have Visual Studio 2013 which is every bit as bulky. I have never benchmarked it, and while I'll wager that the tablet IS slower than both the desktop and laptop at launching it, it has never been so much slower that I have had time to stop and complain about it. And then, once running it is rare that it hits a slow down. And the slow down is likely more a result of the RAM limitations and rather terrible speed of the drive used in the tablet.
Multi-tasking has also never been an issue. iTunes ran fine for the brief period I had it installed. Maybe I'll install Office tonight and see if that is the straw that breaks the camels back. But I somehow doubt it.
Given that Bay Trail is supposed to be effectively 3x faster than Clover Trail with support for quad-core processors at higher frequencies and with more RAM. Pair that all with a decent primary disk drive and I think this platform would run most any application and typical user or a business professional would use at a buttery smooth pace.
And guess what? For all of my rubbish battery hogging x86 apps. I still land in or even over the estimated battery life of the device.
So yes, I disagree with the way WinRT was handled, and I also disagree with the valuation of this new wave of Atom processors. Perhaps Intel should be blamed for continuing to use product line names that have historically inspired ire in their customers. But the hardware was already improved to the point of usability in their 1st generator of SoC's that were going into Windows 8 hardware. The second generation promises to bring us past the point of simply usable and into the realm of typically enjoyable to use. There is no reason to believe that the 3rd such generation won't bring with it processors that can even start to conceive of handling a reasonable amount of work.
Originally, I disagreed with Microsoft's stance not to try and run x86 applications, or even allow compiling desktop style applications on WinRT on the basis that they would run too slowly or ruin battery life or otherwise degrade the experience.
I don't disagree that this was absolutely true (in general) on 1st generation devices. And I don't doubt that examples still exist on 2nd generation devices. I do feel that there are a great many examples contrary to this even on 1st gen devices that have been proven out but the hacking community wherein Windows RT was basically hacked to get traditional x86 apps compiled for ARM running on the Surface and other such devices. The result of which was generally perceived to have greatly improved the value proposition of the device without anyone complaining about degraded experience. And that, I will repeat is on 1st gen hardware (Tegra 3). Second gen WinRT hardware brings substantial performance improvements and greatly increases the realm of what would run adequately on this hardware. Even if they had merely allowed for apps compiled for ARM to run on Windows Desktop by default I think it would have changed perceptions greatly.
Don't get me wrong. I have nothing wrong with the modern style apps. In fact, my stance has long been that Microsoft should have either forced JUST the modern UX down people's throat or treated that environment as a completely separated OS. They've given people a crutch in leaving the old desktop paradigm alive at all which in my opinion has probably helped drive a TON of the hate the modern UI receives. They shouldn't have put the name Windows on it at all. But this is all a side note. So continuing on...
On the other side of things of that article. I also disagree with the description of how Clover Trail processors deal with Windows 8.0/8.1 and the bleak outlook afforded them. I own an Acer W510 which is a Clover Trail tablet. It replaced my 1st gen Core I-3 notebook and frankly, I have never looked back. Is it slower than my old laptop? Sure. In daily use do I regularly notice that slow down? Nope. And that was a shock to me. The last time we owned something with the Atom moniker on it in this household it was so slow I wasn't sure if impatience or old age would kill me first.
I'm clearly not representative of the general populace. But I do think I stress a computer at least as much, if not more than the average user. I don't have Office installed on it. But I do have Visual Studio 2013 which is every bit as bulky. I have never benchmarked it, and while I'll wager that the tablet IS slower than both the desktop and laptop at launching it, it has never been so much slower that I have had time to stop and complain about it. And then, once running it is rare that it hits a slow down. And the slow down is likely more a result of the RAM limitations and rather terrible speed of the drive used in the tablet.
Multi-tasking has also never been an issue. iTunes ran fine for the brief period I had it installed. Maybe I'll install Office tonight and see if that is the straw that breaks the camels back. But I somehow doubt it.
Given that Bay Trail is supposed to be effectively 3x faster than Clover Trail with support for quad-core processors at higher frequencies and with more RAM. Pair that all with a decent primary disk drive and I think this platform would run most any application and typical user or a business professional would use at a buttery smooth pace.
And guess what? For all of my rubbish battery hogging x86 apps. I still land in or even over the estimated battery life of the device.
So yes, I disagree with the way WinRT was handled, and I also disagree with the valuation of this new wave of Atom processors. Perhaps Intel should be blamed for continuing to use product line names that have historically inspired ire in their customers. But the hardware was already improved to the point of usability in their 1st generator of SoC's that were going into Windows 8 hardware. The second generation promises to bring us past the point of simply usable and into the realm of typically enjoyable to use. There is no reason to believe that the 3rd such generation won't bring with it processors that can even start to conceive of handling a reasonable amount of work.
Comments
Post a Comment