POST A COMMENT

10 Comments

Back to Article

  • wsw1982 - Wednesday, June 05, 2013 - link

    It's interesting especially with the consideration how expensive is the outlook alone. Reply
  • domboy - Wednesday, June 05, 2013 - link

    A smart move, and I'm really glad it's going to be a desktop Outlook, not a ModernUI version. I might actually start using it. Interesting way to deploy it too. Reply
  • Duraz0rz - Wednesday, June 05, 2013 - link

    This might actually make a WinRT tablet interesting to me. The Mail and Calendar apps in Win8 are sorely lacking. It just depends on how cut down Outlook is. Reply
  • JDG1980 - Wednesday, June 05, 2013 - link

    My understanding was that RT can't join a domain. If that's still the case, then it's unlikely that it will make much of an inroad with business - especially since RT still can't run any legacy applications. And virtually all businesses have some sort of legacy apps.

    The Exchange server is still a big thing, but these days, virtually all portable devices have ActiveSync support to connect with it, so Outlook isn't as necessary as it once was. If you're giving up legacy compatibility anyway, why go with RT over iOS or Android? Microsoft does still collect licensing fees for ActiveSync, so they're not completely losing out.
    Reply
  • jhoff80 - Wednesday, June 05, 2013 - link

    They have something new called "Workplace Join" in 8.1 that might be expected to cover the lack of Domain functionality in RT. Still, this suffers from the same problem that the current Windows RT management setup (InTune) has- it's something new you need to integrate into your business.

    At this point, I don't see why they don't just enable domain functionality in RT. They've got half the work already done, since group policy already works in RT if you re-enable the service.
    Reply
  • andrewaggb - Wednesday, June 05, 2013 - link

    yeah I think they should have done full domain support. that + outlook + their newly announced games, miracast, wifi direct (xbone controller), starts to make it look like a well rounded device :-) Reply
  • domboy - Wednesday, June 05, 2013 - link

    That's what I've been saying too. I don't see why they've put so many artificial limitations on Windows RT. Windows on ARM should have just been a recompile of Windows 8/8Pro straight up. Reply
  • eanazag - Wednesday, June 05, 2013 - link

    Bingo. They charge too much to get a cut down Windows experience. $400 can buy a Windows laptop that does run x86 apps. No Desktop? Reply
  • eanazag - Wednesday, June 05, 2013 - link

    One of my biggest complaints was sluggishness on the Surface RT; #2 was capacity. They really need to take into consideration usable space. That was just plain dumb. Ultimately Windows RT should have been an ARM Windows 8. No DIY market as it currently stands. Reply
  • sporkfan - Wednesday, June 05, 2013 - link

    I still don't understand why Windows RT exists. You've explained why Windows Phone exists. Why doesn't Windows Phone do everything one needs from Windows RT? There are reasons, but thise reasons are not acceptable. Windows Phone needs real productivity. Windows Phone needs more bigger form-factors.

    In real life, Windows RT only exists because the Office organization refused to embrace touch.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now