Therein lies the problem: Full windows is the only kind of windows there is. Today you still cannot boot a windows server without a GUI layer. Windows is utterly monolithic.

Apple were able to rip the top layers off OSX and ship it as iOS without too much trouble, because it's unix. (They didn't start from scratch.)

Windows, not so much. MS have been trying to do it for a decade or more, and they've failed for the reasons outlined by optymizer.

While Windows's functionality in general is indeed pretty monolithic, you are generally wrong. In fact, there is (I believe since Windows Server 2008[1][1]) an installation method to get Windows without any GUI.

In fact examples like Windows CE (Now WP8) prove you wrong.

[1](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Server_2008#Server_Core)

> Today you still cannot boot a windows server without a GUI layer.

Please give server core on Windows Server 2012[0] a try. They could use your feedback.

[0] http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/hh84...

Server core still has a GUI, it just doesn't run Explorer as a shell and doesn't have a bunch of GUI programs that come with Windows included. When you log in there's a cmd or powershell window floating there with the standard-issue non-themed graphical chrome.

The problem with Server Core begins at the description:

> "Server Core is a minimal server installation option for computers running on the operating system. Server Core provides a low-maintenance server environment with limited functionality."

Limited functionality is the key. In order to administer windows server, one is expected to use remote desktop. This is in contrast to a unix machine, where everything can be controlled via command line and configuration scripts.

It is getting better, as Powershell exposes a lot of functionality. But it is still not there yet.

I disagree. WP7 would've been a much better and more efficient OS for tablets, and they already built that, but in the name of keeping OS licenses for tablets at ~$100 like for notebooks, and some kind of "unification strategy" (which still hasn't been realized yet), they've also made Windows RT for tablets and WP8 out of the NT kernel for phones. But even WP8 would've be better than Windows 8 or Windows RT (which is 95 percent Windows 8 anyway).

It's actually how Apple built iOS, too. But will they put WP8 on tablets? No of course not. Instead, they'll try and push Windows RT to phones, which is the totally wrong way to do it. But just watch it happen.

To the contrary, Microsoft, Nokia and partners are actively looking at bringing WP8 tablets to the market. Thus completely sidestepping the Windows RT issue.

I thought Windows RT existed mainly as a way for Microsoft to send a signal to Intel. Am I reading too much from Intel's involvement in Tizen[0]?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tizen

Not quite true. The Windows kernel is separated since a few years back and can be executed separately.

But probably the entire administration modules requires a GUI.

No, the answer is certainly not correct. Even worse, it's purely speculative and shows that the auther doesn't like MS.

I think it's not about the OS, it's about the drivers. If you would trace the power consumption properly my guess would be that the WiFi module is the culprit. As the hardware is the same, the driver must be the place, where Apple has the edge.