Acer: 'no value' in Windows RT tablets right now

Acer: 'no value' in Windows RT tablets right now

Acer is one of is the world's top PC makers, and so has a pretty tight relationship with Microsoft when it comes to all things computing.

So why haven't we seen an Acer Windows RT tablet yet? Simple – the company doesn't see much point adopting Windows RT as it currently stands.

Acer unveiled its latest Android tablet through the week – the £145 Acer Iconia Pad A1 – plus a couple of higher-end slates running full-fat Windows 8.

Speaking at the launch event for the trio of devices, Acer president Jim Wong revealed the company wasn't ruling out a Windows RT tablet, it just feels at this point Android is a far more attractive proposition for entry-level devices.

“The plan for an RT tablet is ongoing,” Wong said in comments reported by PC World. He revealed that the original plan had been to launch an RT tablet before mid-year, but had shelved the plans for now.

“To be honest, there’s no value doing the current version of RT,” he said bluntly.

Wong was far more complimentary about Windows 8, saying that it was now hitting its stride after a rocky start.

“We believe Windows 8 has some more chances. That’s why we continue to invest in Windows 8 tablets,” Wong said.

Read more about: Windows 8

Add a comment
12 comments

JanSt / MOD  May. 6, 2013 at 12:14

Can't really blame them. They made decent Android tabs (with full USB ports etc) that didn't sell well, and MS couldn't really sell huge numbers of the RT.
Why would Acer venture into that sinkhole?

JanSt / MOD  May. 6, 2013 at 12:16

PS: questionable comment about Windows 8 though. Win 8 laptops are currently cheaper than Win 7 twins. That oughta be the reverse if Win 8 had overcome the "rocky start".

barrybarryk  May. 6, 2013 at 13:10

Well he has to be complimentary about Win 8 really, MS will sooner or later pull their OEM licenses for 7 and it's either sell Win 8 laptops or Linux ones.

And as much as I love Linux, if consumers are put off of Win 8 because the start screen has changed Linux is a non-starter lol

JanSt / MOD  May. 6, 2013 at 13:36

Agree... I stuck to Ubuntu 10 for a reason ;)

matt101101 / MOD  May. 6, 2013 at 14:47

PS: questionable comment about Windows 8 though. Win 8 laptops are currently cheaper than Win 7 twins. That oughta be the reverse if Win 8 had overcome the "rocky start".
Because W8 is sh*t without a touchscreen (which is also, in turn, a sh*t idea on a proper laptop or PC).

barrybarryk  May. 6, 2013 at 15:47

Because W8 is sh*t without a touchscreen (which is also, in turn, a sh*t idea on a proper laptop or PC). I'd hardly go that far. Some of the extra stuff in Win 8 over Win 7 isn't mouse optimised (like that ridiculous start screen) but the desktop is more efficient, works just like before and has a few extra touches like a proper copy queue system, better task/resource monitor and admin tools. Even the crap start menu operates just as before using a keyboard, press windows key, start typing name of application or file, move up or down with the arrows to highlight the one you want and hit return. It just looks different.

I still prefer Windows 7 and I've no desire to run 'apps' on my PC but the ridiculous backlash over their inclusion is moronic. Especially since the start screen can be disabled easily enough. It's like saying Windows 7 is trash because you don't like the included desktop backgrounds and ms paint is ****.

JanSt / MOD  May. 6, 2013 at 16:10

Because W8 is sh*t without a touchscreen (which is also, in turn, a sh*t idea on a proper laptop or PC). I'd hardly go that far. Some of the extra stuff in Win 8 over Win 7 isn't mouse optimised (like that ridiculous start screen) but the desktop is more efficient, works just like before and has a few extra touches like a proper copy queue system, better task/resource monitor and admin tools. Even the crap start menu operates just as before using a keyboard, press windows key, start typing name of application or file, move up or down with the arrows to highlight the one you want and hit return. It just looks different.

I still prefer Windows 7 and I've no desire to run 'apps' on my PC but the ridiculous backlash over their inclusion is moronic. Especially since the start screen can be disabled easily enough. It's like saying Windows 7 is trash because you don't like the included desktop backgrounds and ms paint is ****.

but the desktop is more efficient
That's kind of a personal taste thing, though, isn't it? There is nothing on that screen I want. In fact, it's the kind of stuff OEMs used to add as 'bonus' bloat... That is my opinion anyways...
Here: a recent study showed 'we' check our smartphones in excess of 100x per day (that is: 'we' look at it although no alarm went off and we didn't just invent the greatest tweet ever)...
then we sit down at a PC to get all that 'live' stuff again?... Nah. I do the casual online stuff on my phone or my lady's iPad. When I use the PC or laptop, I want to get something done. I don't wanna get all sorts of distractions.
But, alas - like yours, my POV isn't right for anyone but me.

I used an Acer 5745 for some time. Relatively responsive glass touchscreen; powerful specs allround (at its time...)... I used touch about 10 minutes.

barrybarryk  May. 6, 2013 at 16:16

Not really, the desktop is exactly the same as Windows 7 (except for the absence of the start button) but in terms of memory, GPU and processor usage it's measurably more efficient

Edit: I mean the actual desktop btw, not that monstrosity of a start screen or welcome screen or whatever bs they're calling it now. That can **** right off

JanSt / MOD  May. 6, 2013 at 21:07

Aah... Gotcha... I thought you meant the crayola palette.
Okay, yes, that aside it IS more efficient, I s'pose ;)

matt101101 / MOD  May. 6, 2013 at 21:55

Aah... Gotcha... I thought you meant the crayola palette.
Okay, yes, that aside it IS more efficient, I s'pose ;)

Efficiency, to a point, doesn't really bother me, tbh. I rarely ever push my laptop to the point of needing the extra resources that W8 would free up.

It's currently ticking along using ~2.2gb of RAM (out of 6gb) and using 4% its CPU power. Why exactly do I need to free up more of the available power with an uglier, less enjoyable (IMO) OS?

JanSt / MOD  May. 6, 2013 at 23:37

True...
I find Windows harder and harder to live with. I usually use Ubuntu or Debian at home - Windows only when certain phone apps need Windows. At work we have Windows and Mac OS... whenever I have to use Windows I feel like I just time-warped.

matt101101 / MOD  May. 6, 2013 at 23:56

I like W7, the only thing I find genuinely irritating thing is the restarting needed after updates, that p*sses me off to this day. Saying that, I've never given a modern version of Mac OS or any version of Linux a fair test, tbh.

An SSD is the best investment I've ever made, means my laptop is silent most of the time and responds quickly to everything. More power/efficiency just isn't required for what I use a computer for. Maybe if I was a PC gamer I'd want the OS using as little of my precious power as possible, but I'm not, so I couldn't care less.

Email:

You don't need an account to comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

Comment: