[Windows RT General] Stuphologist:
This conversation has veered off-topic a bit. I'll try to fix that in a second. First, though, I want to point out that in the real world Windows Vista/7/8 have low malware penetration rates in absolute numbers and as a percentage of all attack vectors.The Windows codebase is huge, but Microsoft has gotten very good at stomping the vulnerabilities that turn up. The idea that the Windows ecosystem is a seething mass of malware was a marketing and MS-bashing overstatement even when the problem was quite real, and is totally untrue now. The issue now is apps, especially Java and Adobe Reader. The exploits for Java are, of course, cross-platform and mostly web-based, and this is typical for successful malware today.

Apple, though they talk a good game, isn't on top of either their own vulnerabilities nor those cropping up in their app market. Google is even worse, being tied to their OEM partners and cellular vendors for updates for all but the Nexus devices and devices that are rooted and running an AOSP-based ROM, as well as having a more open approach to their Play Store than Apple. Neither of them is working hard enough at getting ahead of the problem. Microsoft, though, is really good at it. Their insistence on close control of their app market is a reflection of the problems in the Apple and Google markets.

So, back on topic. Is RT dead? I'm guessing no, and it's not just because I own a Surface RT.

Microsoft isn't in the business of innovating concepts. It's never been their gig, and that's not what's happening now. They are magnificent at commoditizing successful ideas and aiming them at large markets. Microsoft has always - eventually - outsold everybody else combined in the consumer and enterprise spaces except for their own installed base.

- Did Microsoft invent word processing? No. Was Word better than Word Perfect? No.

- Did Microsoft invent databases? No. Was Access better than dBase? No. Was/is SQL Server better that Oracle? No.

- Did Microsoft invent spreadsheets? No. Was Excel better than Lotus123? No.

- Did Microsoft invent anything in the Office suite? No. Well, maybe OneNote.

- Was DOS better than UNIX? No, just much cheaper.

- Was Windows ever better than any Mac OS in head-to-head competition? No. Hell, the Amiga OS was better than Windows. Next was better than anything at the time.

In fact Microsoft's entries into these market segments were derided as derivative and unimaginative. Yet they eventually decimated their competition.

My point is that, maybe better than anyone, Microsoft has learned to figure out a workable approach, ignore the condescension and complaints, heed the actual messages in user and market feedback, and refine their products over time. The combined Windows 8 ecosystem as initially rolled out is a patchwork of compromises, but it's advancing Microsoft's goals of escaping from the deadly anchor of legacy applications* while at the same time leveraging their enterprise dominance to stay relevant in a world where computing and connectivity are truly ubiquitous in scope and scale. Their normal refine-rollout-refine process can and I'm sure will take over now.

Prognostication: Maybe not Blue, but Windows 9 will support develop-once deploy on anything - in the Metro environment. Provided, of course, that the end-user's device is capable of running the application. Boot straight to the desktop may be supported in Blue, their enterprise customers are demanding it, but MS will push and prod developers and vendors to ignore the traditional desktop as an environment. Develop for Metro and run anyplace Metro runs, support customers across devices, is an obvious strength for the Metro environment and a strong incentive to application and service developers.

* I recently read comments by someone carping that they couldn't get their 16-bit apps to run in the Windows 8. To which I say, good!

Dave