# Talk:Windows RT

Windows RT is SEPARATE from Windows 8, and should have its own page. Many people rely on Wikipedia, and many are confused about the difference between Windows RT and Windows 8. We need this page to help people who need information about the differences of Windows 8 and Windows RT.
Bombeano (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 00:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC) 

It is important to note that while Windows RT is being developed concurrently with Windows 8, it is not Windows 8 or an edition of Windows 8. Microsoft clearly states in the announcement blog that Windows RT is a new line of product in the Windows family. 
This should be looked as Windows Server is looked at, even though Windows Server shares huge amounts of code from it's client counterpart. Furthermore, With Windows "9", We will likely have a release 2 of Windows RT, rather than "Windows 9 RT".
I will argue that Windows RT should be a section in the Windows 8 article, but under the section heading, it should have "Windows RT: Main Article".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by NazmusLabs (talk • contribs) 03:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC) 

Agreed, I will remove the merge template --Racklever (talk) 11:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I disagree, since Windows RT clearly is an edition of Windows 8 itself - no sources named it as a separate product line.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2012/02/09/building-windows-for-the-arm-processor-architecture.aspx "WOA is a new member of the Windows family, much like Windows Server, Windows Embedded, or Windows Phone. As with those products, WOA builds on the foundation of Windows, has a very high degree of commonality and very significant shared code with Windows 8, and will be developed for, sold, and supported as part of the largest computing ecosystem in the world." - Josh (talk | contribs) 22:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Hhm... then why do other sources not mention that, and why is Windows Thin PC not discussed in its own article?--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
The recent announcement is less explicit, but says "Windows RT is the newest member of the Windows family". Has Microsoft said the same things about Windows Thin PC? - Josh (talk | contribs) 22:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Not really, AFAIK, but Microsoft does market it as if it were a separate Windows family member.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
"WOA builds on the foundation of Windows, has a very high degree of commonality and very significant shared code with Windows 8" - this quote suggests to me that Windows RT should be a subsection of Windows 8, not a separate article. It's basically a version of Windows 8, designed to run on ARM processors. It's not a completely separate OS. - Hux (talk) 20:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

There is no reason to delete this article. Windows in and of itself is a significant global topic. A new iteration of the OS, or a new deployment of Windows technology is a keeper. 203.83.51.37 (talk) 09:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Totally agree (BenBen1234 (talk) 16:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC))
Agreed--Racklever (talk) 16:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Agree - We should wait until we have a greater understanding of where Windows RT fits in the Windows product cycle before deleting this article. --Josh (Mephiles602) 19:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Agree.  Windows RT introduces a walled garden that is totally new to Microsoft Windows.  It is thus a game changer, even if it based on Windows 8. Tuntable (talk) 08:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I can't find it anywhere.
Can anyone help? Fletcherbrian (talk) 11:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Was going to ask this same question. --31.45.79.44 (talk) 15:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Me three. Came to WP to find out: NOTHING with a confirmed official citation! ... Windows Running on Tablets? Windows Runtime — who sodding knows?! Jimthing (talk) 08:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I looked this up and added what I found, along with a citation.  My change: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Windows_RT&oldid=515628404 Benjaminoakes (talk) 14:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I removed the uncited claim that "RT" stands for "Runtime". This recent article directly contradicts the claim that RT = Runtime, and another recent column by John Dvorak leaves him also scratching his head. --EEMIV (talk) 17:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Another article confirms that it stands for Runtime. Salvetetaytay (talk) 07:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Maybe RT stands for RISC Technology, since ARM means Acorn RISC Machine. Mikael4u (talk) 13:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Is WinRT a Windows 8 replacement for WinCE? Like how Win8 is a replacement for W2k-interface-descended systems (2k, XP, Vista, 7)  ? Or does WinRT fit between WinCE and full-Windows (Win8, Win7) 70.49.127.65 (talk) 04:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Just to answer this one: Windows CE is a kernel, like Windows NT. Windows RT is not a thing you can compare with Windows CE or NT, it's build upon a kernel (NT in this case). Just like Windows, Windows Phone and Windows Server, it's based on the NT kernel, RT just stands for the apps it can run. --2A02:1810:980E:1600:B47C:A508:D267:8533 (talk) 22:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I added the windows store/walled garden aspect of RT some time ago, and this was deleted by ViperSnake.  I have put it back.
It is a major strategic change for Microsoft.
(Also tiedied up a bit.  It is of course possible to port x86 apps to Windows RT, but they will have to be modified to follow RT's rules.)
Tuntable (talk) 02:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
User:ViperSnake151 has been reverting the edits without any discussion here.  I have reinstated them agsin.  They also had deleted a cricisim section, which I have not reviewed but at least some of which should probably be added back.  
It looks like the beginning of another tedious edit war, sigh.  Others please comment. Tuntable (talk) 02:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. The Windows Store controversies are specific to the store itself, and the way these are worded give undue weight to those objecting to the differences in Windows 8 and RT, and thus cannot be included in their current form. And specifically, the article said that you cannot port desktop applications from x86 versions of Windows. That is different from WinRT/Metro/Windows Store apps. ViperSnake151  Talk   04:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, first of all lets start with the basics.  If you disagree with another user about an article you discuss it politely in the talk.  You do not just go on a mad edit war.  Personally I do not much care about Windows RT one way or the other, but I do very much care about ugly behaviour on Wikipedia.
As to the issue itself, my understanding is that Windows RT will only run applications that have been downloaded from the App Store.  That makes it quite unlike any other Microsoft operating system which have been quite open in that regard.  To say that that should not be stated in the article is, I believe, unjustifiable.  
I also did not make that a criticism, but pointed out that it could improve security.  But its certainly a characteristic of Windows RT and not the store that Windows RT will not run anything except from the store.  
So I suggest that you pull your head in a bit, and respect the work of others.  Add your other contributions back in, but leave the Windows Store bit alone.  And then come back here to discuss the issue properly. Tuntable (talk) 22:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I did a compromise here with my latest edit. I brought this stuff down in the criticism section, and did mention in several locations that its dependency on an app store and the secure boot feature do contribute to making Windows RT a more closed platform in comparison to Windows 8. A source did mention the real reason why they don't allow Desktop apps, they said that they wanted Windows RT to be reliable and only run software specifically optimized to run on ARM processors for purposes such as optimizing power usage (which the WinRT platform was designed to accomplish).
Additionally, your actions almost seem like you're asserting ownership of the article. Here, undoing others actions are not the way to resolve disputes. What you have to do is collaborate. Compromise. Find a way to incorporate your claims in a neutral fashion. This is what I have been doing. On the complaints by Gabe and Notch, they did not mention RT at all; meaning that relating it to RT is original research. We are also encouraged to be bold in our actions if we believe if it will improve Wikipedia. ViperSnake151  Talk   23:09, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't know why my opinion has been asked for, here (perhaps I was confused with Josh The Nerd), but Tuntable sent me a message on my talk page to show me this discussion. However, I am in support of ViperSnake151's edits. The current state of the article appears to give a neutral, well-referenced, organised and informative description of the apps situation. The most recent edits to the article are a good compromise. Now that both your suggestions are included in the article, I see no reason why this dispute should continue. --Josh (Mephiles602) 02:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Er, you were the first to start deleting.  It is all in the history... --Tuntable
Well, thank you ViperSnake for being so magnanimous in your recent edits.  I have tidied it up a bit, put back a few references, and I hope we are done.  I still think it contains quite a lot of weasil words that could be removed, but it is OK.  I'll also add back the bit about the walled garden potentially improving security which I think you would like.
And getting other people to view a disputed page in an edit war is exactly the right thing to do.  As to owing this page, I never really want to see it again, unless it gets reverted again. Tuntable (talk) 08:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I think the walled garden aspect of RT should be a seperate para or (sub-)section. It does not belong in the criticism section because this was a very conscious choice and MS has both been praised and criticized for this decision. Andries (talk) 11:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC) I think it is quite okay now. Andries (talk) 13:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The crux of my actual objection is the claim that it can only run software "certified by Microsoft and placed in the Windows Store"; this is not the case. Sideloading in enterprise environments is possible like Windows 8, making that point moot. Instead, I was emphasizing the actual reasons for the compatibility issues. ViperSnake151  Talk   22:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


### Copyright
User:Bbb23 suggested that there were some copyright issues with the article, without providing details.  Sounds likes bluster, but if there are any issues please provide details so that they can be dealt with. Tuntable (talk) 23:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


### Poll -- Should App store requiriement be permanently stated
Unlike other windows o/s Windows RT will only run apps from the app store.  Does this warrant a sentence in the header and paragraph in the body.  Or is it a very minor issue that should not be mentioned or be burried in paragraphs conataining other matter.  Would mentioning this promenantly be NPOV, or would hiding it completely be NPOV?
Note that we are not saying whether it is good or not.  Just whether the fact can be stated at all.
Disputed sentence in intro is

Unlike all other variations of Windows 8, Windows RT can only be obtained by users as the pre-loaded operating system on devices produced by participating OEMs.  Also unlike other Windows operating systems, it will only be able to run software that has been certified by Microsoft and placed in the Windows Store.
And in the body is

Windows RT can only run software obtained via Microsoft's application store.  It is hoped that this will improve security by preventing users from running malicious applications, but it is also feared that this walled garden approach will greatly restrict what applications are actually available.  The approach is similar to mobile platforms such as Apple's iOS, where the Apple App Store is the only official manner to obtain software.
Are thes POV, or would removing them be POV?  (Note that the actual article is flipping back and forward at the moment, so comments as to "the current state" are hard to interpret.)

Agree.  It is a fundamental change in Mirosoft's open approach to the otherwise open Windows platform.  Therefor at least one sentense in the intro and a paragraph in the body is justified.  To not state it would be very odd.  Apple may do it too (as stated in the proposed change) but Android does not.  Consider the following articles that indicate that others think it is important:
Windows-You-Love-Gone
drawbacks-of-windows-rt
microsoft-bans-firefox
Tuntable (talk) 08:21, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Disagree on wording: There are specific reasons given directly in the article itself about the application restrictions that you also just reverted. They asserted that it was for stability and reliability reasons, and the Windows Store is not the only way to install apps on RT (see the enterprise management stuff; they can sideload apps). Your actions have the hallmark of a BRD cycle, and have been used to outright censor additional material that has been added simply because of these disputes. You are trying to push a POV stating that Microsoft is only doing this to emulate Apple and create a closed architecture. Articles have to be neutral, and your edit warring must end now. ViperSnake151  Talk   17:41, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Additionally, it also seems as if the version you kept reverting to actually contained copyright violations, so we actually can't go back to there anyway. We should just end the feuding right here, just because the revisions I've been doing are more neutral, informative, and do not contain infringing material. ViperSnake151  Talk   21:56, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Disagree although I do advise ViperSnake151 to tone down his comments. This is nothing special, as allowing desktop apps written for x86 to run on ARM is quite a big undertaking and it's only logical that Microsoft avoid it.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Disagree: Microsoft's approach on Windows RT is no different to other tablet operating systems (unless you count Android's ability to install apps from somewhere other than the marketplace, but I believe this is off by default). Windows 8, being a successor to Windows 7, inherits the ability to run apps from anywhere. Sure, mention that Windows RT can only run apps from the marketplace (in usual circumstances), but I don't think there's a need to go beyond that. pcuser42 (talk) 23:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Agree - Tablets are quite a new type of computer and there isn't a default or accepted way for software to be installed. If it was incredibly common for installation of software to be locked down in this way, it might not be notable, but this is not the case with some popular architectures, such as Android. I feel it is quite an important fact about how open the system is, and so is worth mentioning prominently (especially as it differs from other versions of Windows, so might defy what the user's expectations might be). Of course, arguments in favour of and against this feature (both from Microsoft and others) are worth mentioning in the article. Count Truthstein (talk) 23:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Not quite - for instance, the iPad has been around for 2 years; that is quite some time for trends to be established.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, I find Android's ability to install apps from anywhere to be extraordinary rather than the norm. pcuser42 (talk) 00:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Comment I'm in at least two minds about this.  My first thoughts from a high-level view are it depends the angle from which you look at it: if we consider it as a tablet OS then there's no need since that is the usual story.  On the other hand if it is considered as a version of Windows there is a distinction to be made.
As far as the above body text goes I don't really have any problem with it, in fact I would go further since there is plenty of professional industry commentary that real motivation for app stores is a continued revenue stream by ensuring you get a cut of thrid party app revenue.  The security aspect is secondary and basically a thin veneer of public justification over that.  This isn't specific to Microsoft - Apple and Google are just as guilty of it.  The difference here is management of user expectations since as mentioned above, it is in contrast to other versions of Windows.
The lede text is more problematic.  The purpose of the lede is more to immediately put the subject into context rather than to cover the entire article in fewer words.  That means briefly covering key points only, not matters of controversy.  I'd say drop it purely for that reason.
However, I also note another problem: it isn't even true.  That is the default behaviour for unmanaged consumer devices.  There are always options for commercial or more advanced users, legally, not just by jailbreaking.  I've no experience with RT so I'll cite a case with the iPad: earlier this year we deployed said iPads at work running a custom app, managing helicopter deck operations on board oil rigs.  Needless to say, this kind of specialised app is no good to pretty much anyone else.  Do you think that that went through the app store approval process?  Of course not.
For a start, we wouldn't particularly want all and sundry getting their hands on our app when they have really no need or use for it.  Apple (or indeed Microsoft) wouldn't be interested in managing that kind of deployment since it would be nothing more than a cost to them.  We wouldn't be happy with the delays the approvals process introduces, making change management that much more difficult.
Instead we use established methods to get our own apps on there.  There have to be such methods in place, not least to solve the chicken and egg problem - how can a developer write an app if he is unable to test it works before submitting it?  Yes, there are extra hoops to jump through but they can be jumped through by anyone that cares to do so.  As such I wouldn't put it in the lede - when you start having to clarify simple statements with ifs and buts to make them correct that is a level of detail that doesn't belong in there. Quantumsilverfish (talk) 03:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
I can take a Metro Sytle/Windows store/Microsoft Design Language style app that I have built on Visual Studio 2012 and run it on Windows RT via sideloading [1][2]. Our plan is to have enterprise distribution of Microsoft Design apps on RT distributed through what we call our Internal "App Market", just like we do for iPhone/iPad apps. Using this concept we currently have 100s of iOS apps in our App Market not distributed through Apple's App store.Group29 (talk) 14:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

What about the advantage of Windows RT that there are no viruses and due to the walled garden there will likely be no viruses. Andries (talk) 14:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

There's no viruses for Windows RT due to the viruses being compiled for x86 versions of Windows, and simply won't run on the ARM-based Windows RT. There's nothing stopping coders from exploiting a hole in Windows RT and getting ARM code to run. pcuser42 (talk) 20:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Isn't this the same reason Apple used claimed no viruses? They literally had it on their website, till they removed the statement earlier in the year. Viruses can still get in via email, but the vector is small if anything. Most emails are pre-scanned these days.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.179.54.253 (talk) 06:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Probably, but where's there's software, there's exploitable bugs. pcuser42 (talk) 06:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The jailbreak exploit paragraph contains some factual inaccuracies.
1) The exploit used wasn't discovered in January, it was discovered in 2008, and later elaborated on in 2011 by j00ru, see http://j00ru.vexillium.org/?p=1393#more-1393. The actual byte that is changed using the exploit was reverse engineered(discovered) by clrokr in January 2013. It's interesting to note that the exploit used was reported to Microsoft almost 5 years ago and remained unpatched because it wasn't considered to be maliciously exploitable, since it requires administrator privlidiges and is only an admin->kernel EoP.
2) While a debugger is used in the exploit the article incorrectly states that the debugger itself is changing the memory values. The debugger is injecting some code into a user-mode process (CSRSS) to exploit a kernel-mode vulnerability that allows us to decrement an arbitrary (word-aligned) memory value by 1. The initial writeup called it 0x80000 times to decrement the byte desired to 0, the jailbreak tool calls it 0x7EFF0 times, to still decrement it to 0 but avoid a bugcheck that is called when the entire word is 0. See http://surfsec.wordpress.com/2013/01/06/circumventing-windows-rts-code-integrity-mechanism/ for more information on the technicalities behind the jailbreak.
I've also added a link to the jailbreak tool back to the references, even though it was removed as a forum post. I feel that it is within the rules governing forum posts since it is the official distribution channel of the jailbreak tool (and the only place that I post updates and whatnot), and since I wrote the tool that the entire paragraph talks about it would be silly not to consider me an expert and invalidate it as a source.
Edit: The rules I was sent to were Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources which state that for a non-living biography a forum post or second-hand post by an established expert is valid, which is exactly what that forum post is.
Netham45 (talk) 05:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Netham
I think it is safe to assume your debugger comment is correct, so I will be fixing the issue. Now, I don't know how one could have possibly discovered an exploit five years before a product is released, but even if one has discovered that a certain five year old trick works on a newly released system, this would count as a new exploit. So, overall, I would not mind the wording.
As for you being expert, I am afraid that is not for you to decide. It requires community consensus, which is currently absent. A person cannot nominate himself as an established expert. The policy that applies to you, however, is WP:COI. According to this policy, you are not allowed to edit that portion of the article. In the meantime, I don't know why it bothers you at all: There are valid secondary sources than can perfectly replace the forum source. Why not?
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 13:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
The CNET source that we cite, quotes a Microsoft statement that says "it requires local access to a system, local administration rights and a debugger in order to work." Now that, to me, is a reliable source. It may not be the last word on the subject, and if other reliable sources contradict this, we may have to end up saying "X says you can do this by downloading their software, but Microsoft have stated that the hack "requires local access to a system, local administration rights and a debugger in order to work". But you can't just ignore a source like that. --Nigelj (talk) 14:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Nigel. I read that too and I have no doubt that it is a reliable source for relying an important point of view. But it does not say Debugger must be installed on the end-user's machine. Now I may be wrong, but the solution to end this dispute is to say things as the source says. Instead of:
"modifying the signing level stored in RAM using a debugger."
Say:
modifying the signing level stored in RAM. According to Microsoft's statement to CNET, it needs [...]"
Then, if evidence to the contrary is found, we add it.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 14:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I'd go along with that. --Nigelj (talk) 15:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
It essentially works like this: The debugger modifies an unused codepage at winsrv.dll+0x10800 to inject a small payload that calls a function in the kernel to close a handle to an object. When there's an object, there is a reference counter to said object. An object isn't finally cleared out until said reference counter reaches 0 (nothing having a handle open to it). When you call the function to close a handle it essentially just decrements the counter of how many things have a handle open to it, which is a number generally at an offset of 0x18 from the base structure for the object handle. The exploit works because CSRSS is highly trusted by the Windows kernel (win32k.sys, for specifics), and it does not implement a number of checks, such as ones to make sure that a handle being closed is actually a handle, or if it's to a valid memory address. The jailbreak works because we can pass it any arbitrary memory value (given that it's on a writable page, that excludes modifying actual code, only variables) and have it decrement a targeted memory address by 1. There is a bitmask that is writable that controls the required signature authentication level. I believe that it's 0x0A=Windows 0x08=Microsoft 0x04=Verisign 0x00=No signature requirements. Windows RT comes with this byte set to 0x08 instead of 0x00, which is what Windows 8 x86 and x64 come as. So to decrement this value and 'jailbreak' the tablet we have to call the exploit to dereference an object handle with the memory address of the byte 0x80000 times, since the byte we want to modify is the 5th byte in the word (We can only call the exploit on word-aligned addresses because ARM lacks the ability to access non word-aligned addresses, unlike x86/x64). The part of the job that the debugger does is, while important, not the technologically interesting part. It does require one, and that does add complexity to the hack, but since the debugger is just a stepping stone to changing the byte in RAM having it read that the debugger itself changes the byte is factually inaccurate.
As far as the exploit goes, it was discovered in Windows Vista (Or possibly a pre-release of Windows 7, given the time), but it is believed to have existed as far back as Windows NT 3.51. Since Microsoft doesn't completely rewrite Windows for every release it should be a given that it was discovered for an older version of Windows and just not patched. The article that j00ru wrote, http://j00ru.vexillium.org/?p=1393#more-1393 , goes into a bit more detail on that front. The article says, "I believe I privately reported the bug to Microsoft somewhere around 2009, but it was obviously not classified as a security issue (just a reliability one), and apparently hasn’t been found important enough to be fixed..."
And for the jailbreak tool, the '"X says you can do this by downloading their software' part, the jailbreak tool makes use a of an easially scriptable debugger that Microsoft created. It should be here (It's on the disambiguation page for 'CDB', but the article is empty): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Console_Debugger
Netham45 (talk) 21:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Good news, I found a reliable source with a better explanation. Basically, this. ViperSnake151  Talk   21:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Also, I would not say that they have indicated that it -will- be patched, the quote from Microsoft I believe says something more along the lines of they won't guarantee it'll stay around, which to me says that they won't actively work to preserve the exploit; if something breaks it so be it. The original source should be on TheNextWeb.
Netham45 (talk) 23:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

there must be estimates somewhere. should e reference them?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.152.151 (talk) 04:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC) 

There are tools that track the usage share of web browsers by operating system such as the Wikimedia Traffic Analysis Report - Operating Systems. Note that both Windows 8 and Windows RT are included as NT version 6.2 [3]. --Racklever (talk) 05:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

RT (Run Time) is NOT an ARM OS. It is ONLY a Window Shell that runs the XAML and HTML5 functionality required for the Windows 8 'Metro' interface.
It does not support Win32 Windows function calls and does not support Native Mode (hence not Win32 functionality). This article is no more accurate than calling Enlightenment or Gnome a Linux Distribution.
Shjacks45 (talk) 15:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm...Windows RT is certainly more than a shell. If it were only a shell, it would need to run on top of a separate operating system. Instead, it runs directly on the ARM hardware, because it is an ARM operating system. It is true that Windows RT allows processor-independent XAML and HTML5 code to run at the top layer. In order to get that code running on ARM hardware, you of course need an ARM operating system somewhere in between. The new WinRT API actually allows several different programming languages to be used, including C++, which requires apps to be compiled for either x86 or ARM. http://blogs.microsoft.co.il/blogs/arik/archive/2011/09/19/windows-8-what-s-new.aspx Although Windows RT doesn't allow any kind of third-party Win32 applications, and could never run x86-Win32 applications, it does implement ARM-Win32 and uses it for included desktop apps such as Office and Explorer. Some have even hacked Windows RT so that they can run custom ARM-Win32 applications. http://www.pcworld.com/article/2024918/jailbreak-tool-gives-windows-rt-tablets-desktop-like-functions.html - Josh (talk | contribs) 16:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
P.S. Actually it looks like you've mixed up Windows Runtime (WinRT) with Windows RT. - Josh (talk | contribs) 02:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The chapter about Windows_RT#Development was scrubbed because "it did not related on the subject". I fail to see why. I came to the Windows RT article because I wanted to have information about developing on Windows RT, and I saw nothing, so I created this after researching sources. I have no problem on putting it on another article specific about developing on Windows Rt rather than in this one, but for the moment there is not enough material to do that. Besides, there is a development chapter for all of the major Operating systems, including mobile ones like iOS and Android. Hervegirod (talk) 15:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

That stuff is irrelevant there because it shares the same development platform for apps as Windows 8; the entire platform has its own article at Windows Runtime that goes into great detail about how these new apps are developed. ViperSnake151  Talk   19:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Windows RT/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Bonkers The Clown (talk · contribs) 04:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
## Comments by the Clown
I will review this article. Cheers, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/  Nonsensical Babble  ☯ 04:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write.  This is how the article, as of June 25, 2013, compares against the  six good article criteria:
I have taken over the GA review of this article.  Andrew327 13:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

1: Well-written?:
Quality of writing is neat. Some pointers, though:
LEAD: Per WP:LEADCITE, facts in the lede (unless deemed controversial) need not be cited as it appears again in the body.
(Andrew).  Several small fixes needed, but nothing serious.

In paragraph three of Development, the Wikilink of "Win32" to Windows API is unlikely to help readers.  Maybe drop "Win32" and "otherwise" from the sentence.
Paragraph four of the same section uses "officially" twice in one sentence and "launch" should be changed to "launched".
In Included software paragraph 2, "beginning on 8.1" should read "beginning with version 8.1".
Part of Hardware compatability is written in the future tense, even though RT has already been released.
The Devices paragraph one has a split infinitive, "to only use"; change to "only to use".  Andrew327 14:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

2: Factually accurate?:
Well referenced throughout. Can see no unreferenced statements. However... Is reference number 48 reliable enough? It's a blog and reads like somebody's POV opinions on Window RT. Hosted on the reliable CIO website though.
(Andrew).  Looks good.   Pass  Andrew327 14:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

3: Broad in coverage?:
There's a "Difference with Windows 8" section, but is it the same as a "Features" section?
(Andrew).  The article is sufficiently broad.   Pass  Andrew327 14:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

4: Neutral point of view?:
Reads like a neutral article to me. Good.
(Andrew).  More small suggestions:

The word "normal" in Device management should be changed to "other".
The level of detail about pre-launch public information in Reception is undue.  The Verge's article isn't really an "investigative report" and the whole controversy could be summarized in one sentence.  Something like Some members of the media claimed that Microsoft provided insufficient information about the differences between Windows 8 and Windows RT prior to launch.  Andrew327 14:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

5: Article stability?:
No edit wars. Good.
(Andrew).  Despite the volume of substantive edits over the past month, the article has remained sufficiently stable.   Pass.  Andrew327 14:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

6: Images in article: All images used in the article are on Wikimedia Commons, and tagged with the appropriate license tags. Good.
(Andrew).  All images are appropriately tagged, but it would be nice to have higher quality on both.  Not grounds for a GA fail by any means.   Pass  Andrew327 14:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

More to come. Cheers, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/  Nonsensical Babble  ☯ 04:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Regards to pricing, we don't know what price it is. The actual OEM cost of RT seems to be confidental, and doesn't matter since you can't buy it through such a channel to begin with. ViperSnake151  Talk   18:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Okay, that point removed. Thanks! (who's "we") ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/  Nonsensical Babble  ☯ 03:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
As for source 48, my personal solution would be to not rely on that single source, because I'm pretty sure numerous outlets have made that connection based on what I've read.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Could you replace it with a more reliable source then? Cheers, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/  Nonsensical Babble  ☯ 03:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
On the topic of features, aside from the caveats mentioned in the article, RT is identical to 8. That's why I send people there instead. ViperSnake151  Talk   15:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


### Query
It has been over a month since anything has been posted to this page. There have been a number of edits to the article in the past month. What is the status of the review, please? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:07, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


### Would anyone mind if I took over this GA review?
I would be happy to pick up this review since it has been over a month without an update.  Although I don't want to step on anyone's toes, so I'll wait for consensus.  Andrew327 02:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it's great that you want to take it over. Since both Bonkers and ViperSnake have been actively editing since you posted the above and neither has responded with any objections, I think you've done your part; it's been a week since I asked what was going on, which is plenty long enough. Though if you want to be thorough, you could put notifications on both of their talk pages, and ask for an immediate response. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
In that case, I'll get started.  I will post a revised evaluation within one week.  Andrew327 16:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Andrew, any word on when you might be ready to post something? It'll be two weeks tomorrow since your last post; I'd hate for this to languish once again. Again, thanks for volunteering to take this on. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
My apartment flooded, which put my computer out of commission and has set back my Wiki-editing.  I hope to have the GA review finished in a few days.  Andrew327 17:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Yow, sorry to hear that. I hope that you're editing means the computer (or a replacement) is functioning well. Thanks for persevering. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, you can. ViperSnake151  Talk   16:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
The article is very close to meeting GA criteria and I see no reason why it couldn't pass within 24 hours.  Let me know if you have any questions.  Andrew327 14:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The seven day deadline is coming up, but I plan to keep this GA review open for several weeks due to the fact that it took two months to get the review completed.  Andrew327 18:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
The reviews are as complete as they are going to get at this point, so I'm closing and passing. Wizardman 21:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Is that necessary to mention? It's a very trivial thing to say. An x86 emulator may run all x86 operating system, no need to say which one they tried first. SilverEzhik (talk) 21:30, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with its removal. - Josh (talk | contribs) 00:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The XDA-Developers website is the home of these jailbreak-type exploits. From my reading of WP:SPS, it seems the site can indeed be used:

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; ✓ 
it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities); ✓
it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; ✓
there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; ✓ (the site is cited by the other sources in the section; screenshots and software downloads prove this isn't a dubious article)

the article is not based primarily on such sources. ✓
Regards
--RaviC (talk) 18:06, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Those only apply to information about themselves, not a product they produce. Again it is also a forum. Forums are largely considered unreliable sources. Secondly, you imply a consensus based of silence. I don't think that's how it works. ViperSnake151  Talk   20:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I had cordially invited you to contribute to this discussion back on the 22nd of December.  I don't really want to waste time with you (please read - WP:OWN - it should apply to your edits here) - but FYI this forum is not exactly any old forum, it's universally recognised as the key source of developer hacking (and has been such for more than a decade that I can remember - it even has its own article here), and where the first Windows RT jailbreaking actually occurred.  Thus, it's a key source and I have seen it used by other authors of high standing on many articles.  The addition of a WebKit browser is notable as it is the first such example of a non-Trident browser on the platform.
Regards
--RaviC (talk) 09:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Then why haven't any secondary sources discussed it? Is there any existing consensus of XDA being considered reliable? Are there any sources for your claim that it's "universally recognised as the key source of developer hacking"? ViperSnake151  Talk   15:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

As the edit history shows, there has been an WP:EDIT WAR on the fact that Windows 10 Mobile (or the PC Windows 10) is a (or the) successor to Windows RT and/or Windows Phone. Before the semi-protection expires, let's see if we can reach a consensus below!
(Please note also the following WP:GAR)

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Windows RT/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.
This page has recently been subjected to edit warring concerning whether Windows RT is succeeded by Windows 10 or Windows 10 Mobile. Hence the article no longer meets the stable criterion of GACR, justifying delisting from WP:GA. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 19:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Reassessments require notification to the interested parties and time for them to respond. (A week is pretty much a minimum, since you need to give editors a chance to respond and not everyone logs in every day.) An edit war (which ended that day with article protection, and has not resumed in the week since) is not a valid reason for delisting unless it persists far longer than two days and cannot be settled. As this "reassessment" was a clear violation of the rules and guidelines, and done by a comparatively new editor who has never reviewed a Good Article nor done a reassessment, I am reverting this delisting immediately.
Also, reassessments should be done by independent parties, and as a prior contributor to the article (though not a primary one), it's definitely borderline as to whether Some Gadget Geek should have initiated the review at all. I strongly advise that before venturing into the GA space again, Some Gadget Geek makes sure to read all the instructions and be sure they are understood. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll kick it off... Windows 10 Mobile should be considered a de facto successor to Windows RT as it is a mobile-oriented OS designed for tablets and smartphones, which are considered mobile devices (more specifically mobile computers) by definition.

I put "none" in the infobox with the ref and quote. Note: "Windows 10 Mobile which is the successor to Windows Phone 8.1", Windows 10 Mobile can't be a successor in the same sense for RT, but thinking about this more, I'm willing to change the infobox from "none" if others agree. What I may be mixing up is OS vs. devices. What Microsoft is saying is that the OS (in say, their devices) WILL not be upgraded to 10 Mobile (or otherwise). It seems these devices are "dead". You will need to buy a new one (to get an OS "upgrade"). It might as well be a Linux or Android one.. (or even you could install those on the devices Microsoft can't upgrade..?) I hate to be leading people here along some Microsoft path.. but if a good source is found saying some Microsoft OS is a defacto successor to RT then I'm fine with it. The source I gave, should stay in the article in the main text then and clarified and/or infobox can say "Windows 10 Mobile ([devices] not upgradable too)". comp.arch (talk) 10:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
The fact that you cannot upgrade from one to the other does not necessarily mean they are not a successor. You cannot upgrade Windows Mobile to Windows Phone 7 but its still treated as successor. It serves essentially the same purpose (Windows-based platform for ARM-based tablets), except that it is based on Windows Phone rather than Windows for PC. ViperSnake151  Talk   16:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Ok, then on what grounds are *you* reverting people, to my "none", that was justified by a source on that grounds.. Microsoft may (or not) consider RT dead, and 10 a "defacto" successor.. Even if they do not others might. Would any source for that do or only what the WP:PRIMARY source, Microsoft, says? comp.arch (talk) 15:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Because there is not yet consensus for this claim, and because it's borderline original research. ViperSnake151  Talk   15:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
The whole argument actually comes from the fact that originally before Windows 10 Mobile was known to be an edition of Windows 10 (as despite it was already announced several editors kept reverting any references to it, but thankfully that dispute is now behind us) it was called "Windows 10 for devices smaller than 8" " which immediately let some sources state that it's the successor to Windows RT 8.1 (and rightfully so if one would look at it strategically), this argument completely lies on the fact that Windows RT 8.1 is used on small tablet-PCs and now Microsoft will use Windows 10 Mobile for small tablet-PCs, the fallacy here lies in the fact that Windows RT 8.1 is also used on larger tablet-PCs which would make "regular" Windows 10 a successor also, so if one would claim that Windows 10 Mobile is the successor to Windows RT 8.1 they should also note that Windows 10 Home fills this exact same category on larger tablet-PCs, actually I'd say that Windows 8.1 with Bing and/or Windows 10 with Bing can be considered "truer" successors to Windows RT 8.1 than Windows 10 Mobile, but honestly I won't object to Windows 10 Mobile being listed as the successor as it does make sense in context. --Hoang the Hoangest (talk) 01:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
It there are two successors, there can't be a successor (singular), while possibly the template allows listing more than one, that the template for the infobox allows for. It seems what the successor is may or may not be based on WP:OR, or info on announced, not final versions and I think Microsoft has no polices (predecessor, that implies successors), on new versions until they are officially released. The primary source, Microsoft (after release), trumps older info/news/rumours on not-released or beta versions.
Whatever is done, about the infobox, two successors need to be explained in main text, or possible "defacto" ones, w/sources. I would even support "it's complicated" linking to it in the infobox.. :)
P.S. See what I did about "defacto" successors got reverted and just let it go. comp.arch (talk) 10:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Why did you outright comment out pertinent information from the lead that detailed Windows RT's reception? ViperSnake151  Talk   15:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
ViperSnake151 I trust you [fixed whatever was wrong].I can't quite see where (maybe it only looks that way[4]). Anyway, not important – now/I forget the details/missed your comment at the time..  comp.arch (talk) 16:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can tell these are 2 completely different platforms used on 2 completely different form factors and Windows CE is more of an under the hood operating system while Windows RT is consumer client software, and I've searched it and couldn't find any source that state that Windows RT is the successor to Windows CE. --Cookie Nguyen (talk) 20:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Do not let yourself get confused by this. Windows 10 desktop OS IS the direct successor to Windows RT. It just happens to have an emulation layer that Windows RT didn't have that lets it run x86 apps. It also doesn't block installation of apps from outside the Windows Store. Finally, it has multiple editions like its x86 counterpart.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by NazmusLabs (talk • contribs) 12:16, 9 December 2016 (UTC) 


### Okay, I'm going to spell this out for you
Let's make this very simple, okay? Windows 10 on x86 is the next version of Windows 8.x on x86. Windows 10 on ARM is the next version of Windows 8.x on ARM. Any questions? Any confusions?
Still in doubt? Let's try this: addition of a new feature for a succeeding version is normal. Windows 10 on x86 has features Windows 8 on x86 doesn't have, such as TaskView. Windows 10 on ARM has features Windows 8 on ARM didn't have, such as an emulation layer.
Still confused? Fine, one here's another: Just because you can't directly upgrade to a newer version doesn't mean it's not a successor. Have you heard of Windows Phone 8 having no upgrade path from Windows Phone 7? No one doubts that Windows Phone 8 is a successor, do they? Windows RT is no different.
Still not convinced? Okay, finally, a name change doesn't mean it's not a successor. iOS 3 is the successor to iPhone OS 2. Different names, but so what. Windows 10 is the successor to Windows RT. Different names, but so what.
Any questions?
--NazmusLabs (A small part of a bigger movement to better the world!) (talk) 14:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello.
"Windows 10 on ARM is the next version of Windows 8.x on ARM."
WP:CRYSTAL: Windows 10 on ARM does not exist at this time. Microsoft must first deliver this Windows 10 on ARM before we talk about whether it is or it is not a successor.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 05:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Fine. NazmusLabs (A small part of a bigger movement to better the world!) (talk) 07:48, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

At the time of the Lumia 2520 release, the MS acquisition of Nokia's mobile business had been announced, but not yet completed. The latter took until in 2014. I corrected this in the article. Mottenkiste (talk) 22:28, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Please reupload the images to the English Wikipedia and adapt them to meet the non-free and fair use criteria. These images are currently on Commons, where they are not allowed as they are of copyrighted software. There is a deletion discussion. Thank you! --93.42.65.133 (talk) 10:16, 17 November 2021 (UTC)