"Windows CE" wasn't even advertized by that name much most of the time. The devices also didn't look like a notebook and were obviously incapable to run Windows applications by the look of them alone. Mobile and Phone are kinda self-explainatory.
"RT On the other hand sounds pretty much like XP, ME and NT - all all those were able to run Win32 software. it also has a Desktop and the Surface pretty much looks laptopy.
How do you explain to the the average customer that a Windows that HAS the traditional Desktop, has almost the same name like Windows XP, runs Office that looks exactly like the Windows Office, and runs on a computer that looks very laptopy ISN'T able to run Windows software? That explanation will suck.
I don't think customer is confused by the difference. I think the customer simply doesn't care, otherwise they wouldn't even bother iPad or Android tablets.
Most people who have tablets still have a laptop or desktop PC. I thought Win8 is all about "everything at once"? If that's not the case, why getting RT at all? Why not get an iPad instead? It's far more mature and has far more apps.
What is going on, is more like Dell wants customers to buy the more expensive Pro version, but, failed to convince them.
That's why RT is doing sooo great..
Thus, they have the scapegoat saying customers is confused. But, the reality is, customers don't care.
To quote my OP post: ...forced Microsoft to extend its Surface RT return policies after consumers realized the device could not run their favorite Windows applications.
For people who really want to run old apps, they already know they need Pro version.
How is that so evident? Microsoft actually isn't exactly trumpeting this fact from the rooftops.
But, most consumers will just run internet, email, and some casual games. A lot of them don't need the pro version.
I actually would recommend RT over Pro to many people.
The early 2000s called, they want your argument back. Wasn't it the same reason why "Year of the Linux Desktop" would take off any time soon? Only back then it was "Web-apps is all you need". You're underestimating the tens of millions of Windows applications and games many people are accustomed too. Also Java is used on a lot of banking- and internal school sites too and doesn't run on RT. If you ONLY need the pure limited tablet functionality, IOS is a far a better deal right now. I thought a Windows tablet is ideal for people who also want to run World of Warcraft on such a thing or do some quick Quicken task. "Windows RT" doesn't make it clear that this isn't possible, so, what's left? Shelling big bucks for the Metro UI because it's so beautiful?