Microsoft to finally lay Windows 10 Mobile to rest on December 10, 2019, recommends users switch to iOS or Android

[LAwLz]

25 minutes ago, Rohith_Kumar_Sp said:

The channel's name is business "Casual", while you might you can nitpick details, it's sufficient for people to get educated about, it's like a techquickie video, nothing they ever say is absolute truth but you get the bullet points, the more details you try to make it, the less interesting the video becomes.  

If someone said that the Macbook was good because of its high end m3 or i3 processor, would you call it nitpicking to point out that those are low end parts?

Same thing here. Saying that Windows Phone had high end hardware, when it was still stuck on single core processors and low end graphics while the competitors had dual and even quad core processors, is not "nitpicking".

 

And if you think more details makes something less interesting, then you will never get that far in the world of technology.

 

Anyway, I think the video was fundamentally flawed and did not provide an explanation even close to the truth. The only part it got right was that Microsoft did not take mobile seriously and they were overly confident.

[Donut417]

How many times has Microsoft tried to get Windows working on ARM?

 

I have a feeling we will see a Windows device in the future again. We if Microsoft can make Windows on ARM successful. Last I heard they can do some emulation to get some x86 software to work. Which means Windows tablets with ARM could be successful. 

 

What I'm trying to say is if Windows on ARM is successful, what's to stop them from making a new phone? Imagine a phone you can emulate your x86 apps on, that could be cool. Though they will still need to work on their app store. 

[Fetzie]

12 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

• No headphone plug and only 1 USB Type-C and not 2 to compensate... but I guess we can't have everything

If you buy Samsung you still get a headphone jack

 

I would have got a windows phone but the environment just didn't offer the apps I want (or need) to use.

[GoodBytes]

22 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

How many times has Microsoft tried to get Windows working on ARM?

I am confused by your question. You act like they were failure in doing so.

Going by memory, you have 4 OSs that can run on ARM based CPUs

• Windows CE - Branches out to:
  • Windows CE
  • Windows PocketPC 2000/2002
  • Windows Mobile 2003 /.2003 SE / 5 / 6 / 6.1 / 6.5
  • Windows Embedded Handheld (Windows Mobile 6.5 without phone part for, but may have cellular connectivity, running a company custom software)
  • Windows Phone 7 (based on Windows CE)

 Now for the complicated part:

• Windows 8 (does not include full Windows 8 ) Branches out to
  • Windows RT (could only compiled ARM 32-bit programs)
  • Windows Embedded 8 /  8.1 (shared kernel with Windows 8, but different OS. Can only run ARM32 programs designed for this OS)
  • Windows Phone 8 /  8.1
• Windows 10
  • Windows 10 IoT (similar Windows Embedded 8. But depending on the edition, it may or may not have a desktop. Can only run UWP apps compiled for ARM32 or ARM64)
  • Windows 10 for ARM (full Windows 10 64-bit, can run: ARM32, ARM64 programs, as well as have a 32-bit x86 translator to allow x86 32-bit programs to run on the system)
  • Windows 10 Mobile (like Windows Phone 8, but based on Windows 10 Kernel, and during its released, moved to "OneCore" technology. OneCore is basically Microsoft move to not have all these branches and edition of Windows, and just have 1, compiled for the needed CPUs, and the feature set can be enabled or disabled / included or not, based on the edition and target device). So for example: XBox One runs Windows 10 now, same OS, but doesn't have Shell32, and all the rest of stuff Windows 10 comes with, it is just stripped down and has XBox interface.

 

22 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

I have a feeling we will see a Windows device in the future again. We if Microsoft can make Windows on ARM successful. Last I heard they can do some emulation to get some x86 software to work. Which means Windows tablets with ARM could be successful. 

Yes, Microsoft and Qualcomm seems to be heavily invested in making a mobile device (that can do phone calls, is to be determined) that runs full Windows 10, x86 32-bit programs (i guess 64-bit support will eventually come). Support for Windows 10 ARM is slowly growing. We have VLC desktop app being officially compiled for ARM 64. Mozilla announced that they are working (alpha version avail now) on full Firefox officially supported and compiled for Windows 10 on ARM. Chromium is being worked on by Microsoft, and Edge (which will use Chromium engine) is being worked on. Google is showing interest in making an official ARM version of Chrome for Windows 10 on ARM.

Microsoft has provided tools for easy porting to native ARM64 for Windows 10 on ARM under Visual Studio, with a compiler for it.

Microsoft and its OEM it partnered with, still treats Windows 10 for ARM as a soft launch. PCs made for it are made in very limited quantities, and at the same time Qualcomm is actively working on pushing its chips to make everything a reality. We had Snapdragon 835 to get started, which is just the normal mobile chip. 855 as a stop gap from the upcoming laptop target chip, which is a modified 845 which has had its power management profile to not be super power conservative, and improve multi-tasking performance (mobile OS that we have, aren't really multi-tasking OSs.. very limited, so the phone CPUs where designed around that)

 

22 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

What I'm trying to say is if Windows on ARM is successful, what's to stop them from making a new phone? Imagine a phone you can emulate your x86 apps on, that could be cool. Though they will still need to work on their app store. 

Microsoft is working on it, but they don't want the mess of different versions and branches, which pushes re-inventing the wheel. so instead of having engineers working on new features, they are re-creating another version of some back-end component that was already done and perfected, but because the kernel works differently, they have to scrap all that and restart from scratch which is months and months of work, only to end up with potentially a unpolished version 1 feature compared to the other.

 

From what we know:

• Microsoft is working on its adaptable "Composable" GUI, which is called CShell, which will replace the aged old 1995 (if I am not mistaken) Shell32, (which of course has evolved over the years). Note that CShell plans to replace Shell32, but Shell32 is more than just the task bar and desktop and such, it has the whole back-end for programs interfaces, and everything needs to be compatible, so it is a massive undertaking.
• Windows Andromeda - Project name for Windows OneCore project, which is the continued effort in having 1 core for all OS. Parts of it on Windows 10 that you are using now, and just not realizing it.
• Universal Windows Driver platform. Software support for Windows 10 on ARM is one thing, the other is a drivers, and quality drivers is much needed to ensure a smooth and reliable experience, let alone great performance (See Windows Vista at release when it didn't have that). To ensure this, Microsoft is working on a new driver platform where allows 1x driver to not only runs only on the full Windows as we know it, but also Windows on ARM. To target everyone, the driver control panel (if any) will be distributed through the Windows Store as a UWP app. This is still in the works, but if you have the latest version of Windows installed, using the supported Intel graphic chips, you can enjoy it (which brings nothing to you), by getting these new drivers on Intel website:  https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/articles/000031275/graphics-drivers.html

[LAwLz]

1 hour ago, Donut417 said:

How many times has Microsoft tried to get Windows working on ARM? 

 

I have a feeling we will see a Windows device in the future again. We if Microsoft can make Windows on ARM successful. Last I heard they can do some emulation to get some x86 software to work. Which means Windows tablets with ARM could be successful.  

 

What I'm trying to say is if Windows on ARM is successful, what's to stop them from making a new phone? Imagine a phone you can emulate your x86 apps on, that could be cool. Though they will still need to work on their app store.  

I don't see making x86 programs run on tablets or phones saving Microsoft for the simple reason that using most x86 programs on a touch screen is very clunky.

Programs are designed with a mouse, and thus high precision, in mind. An example is list menus. x86 is full of them, and they work really well when you use a mouse, but are a pain to use with a touch screen.

 

 

 

I think Microsoft are doing the right thing and giving up on their mobile platform. It has just sucked out a huge amount of cash from them for very little in return.

It's better to focus on the other areas where they are successful.

[LAwLz]

16 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

Yes, Microsoft and Qualcomm seems to be heavily invested in making a mobile device (that can do phone calls, is to be determined) that runs full Windows 10, x86 32-bit programs (i guess 64-bit support will eventually come). Support for Windows 10 ARM is slowly growing. We have VLC desktop app being officially compiled for ARM 64. Mozilla announced that they are working (alpha version avail now) on full Firefox officially supported and compiled for Windows 10 on ARM. Chromium is being worked on by Microsoft, and Edge (which will use Chromium engine) is being worked on. Google is showing interest in making an official ARM version of Chrome for Windows 10 on ARM.

Ohh GoodBytes... Do you never learn?

You can't keep going "Look! this program is on the platform now so it's going to be great!". You did the exact same thing with Windows on smartphones. Whenever one program announced that it would be coming to the platform you used that as an example of how developers were totally going to start embracing the platform and it would become amazing... Yet it never trickled out into being more than just a handful of developers.

 

The top 100 apps in the Google Play Store in Sweden all have over 100,000 downloads. A large portion of them are apps from Swedish companies, for Swedish people. Things like "BankID", "CSN", "Viaplay", "svt", "SJ", etc, which does not work in any other country. In order to gain traction in one country you probably need to have all 100 top apps from that region in your market place, and they need to be as frequently updated as on the other platforms. I would not be surprised if that amounts to thousands of different apps.

You mentioned 1 video player, one alpha browser and Chrome which Google is "showing interest in making". That's not even close to begin enough.

 

 

16 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

Microsoft has provided tools for easy porting to native ARM64 for Windows 10 on ARM under Visual Studio, with a compiler for it.

Porting what exactly? x86 to ARM compatible UWP? Developers have been able to do that for years and barely anyone bothers because it's terrible.

UWP has severe limitations in what it can do and function, and as a result many programs can't be ported.

[Doobeedoo]

Kinda shame, I lived Lumia 950XL and how the OS and UI worked. Would like to see them come back one day in phone field. They need to have proper app support too. 

[Commodus]

I maintain that a part of Windows Phone/Mobile's failure comes down to Steve Ballmer and his overestimation of Windows' worth to the public.

 

To start, Microsoft insisted on calling it Windows Phone despite the radical break in interface, as if merely mentioning Windows was enough to send people flocking over.  Its early focus was also on things like Office integration.  The problem is, Ballmer and Microsoft didn't seem to realize that most people settled for Windows, because it had the apps and prices they wanted; only a fraction of users were actually fans of it.  And touting things like Office meant nothing to everyday users who weren't about to edit spreadsheets or review docs on their phones.  In essence, Ballmer and crew acted as if people just wanted Windows PCs in their pockets when many wanted something different and truly built for a phone screen, or even to get away from Windows.

 

I'd also say that Ballmer made a fundamental misjudgment of Windows Phone/Mobile's priority.  Microsoft should have been restructuring its business around Windows Phone/Mobile, but instead it always treated the platform as an offshoot, a secondary concern that was never going to get many resources because Windows on PCs was always the crown jewel.  Where Apple and Google were willing to reorient large parts of their entire structure to give their mobile platforms the best shot at success, Microsoft just assumed that its monopoly on the desktop would translate to phones with minimal effort.  So you not only ended up with an OS and hardware that were perpetually behind the curve (exceptions like the Lumia 1020 notwithstanding) -- you also ended up with a company that was unwilling to reorganize to fix those problems.

 

Some people will curse Nadella for downplaying Windows on phones and spreading Microsoft software to Android and iOS, but I think he realized his choice was to either dramatically reinvest in mobile Windows or back out entirely... and that it was likely too late to reinvest.  He's a much more astute CEO and wisely realized that it was better to have apps on Android and iOS than to sink into complete irrelevance out of a stubborn, Ballmer-like pride in Windows.

[GoodBytes]

53 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Ohh GoodBytes... Do you never learn?

Oh LAwL... Do you never learn?

Quote

You can't keep going "Look! this program is on the platform now so it's going to be great!". You did the exact same thing with Windows on smartphones. Whenever one program announced that it would be coming to the platform you used that as an example of how developers were totally going to start embracing the platform and it would become amazing... Yet it never trickled out into being more than just a handful of developers.

It is called: Education.

Highlighting what is in the works, what has come out, is informative. It is about keeping teh reader up-to-date if they didn't know. Where did I say "it will be great!"?

 

Quote

The top 100 apps in the Google Play Store in Sweden all have over 100,000 downloads. A large portion of them are apps from Swedish companies, for Swedish people. Things like "BankID", "CSN", "Viaplay", "svt", "SJ", etc, which does not work in any other country. In order to gain traction in one country you probably need to have all 100 top apps from that region in your market place, and they need to be as frequently updated as on the other platforms. I would not be surprised if that amounts to thousands of different apps.

If I knew nothing about Android and I was in Sweden, I would like to know this, very much so.

 

Quote

You mentioned 1 video player, one alpha browser and Chrome which Google is "showing interest in making". That's not even close to begin enough.

That is your opinion. I provide the information, you get to make the decision.

 

Quote

Porting what exactly? x86 to ARM compatible UWP? Developers have been able to do that for years and barely anyone bothers because it's terrible.

UWP has severe limitations in what it can do and function, and as a result many programs can't be ported.

Visual Studio has tools and a native compiler that can take your C/C++/C# code for Win32 and compile it for native ARM64 with optimization options.

You'll have a Win32 ARM64 version of your program. It will only run on Windows 10 on ARM system as a result.

 

[LAwLz]

1 hour ago, GoodBytes said:

It is called: Education.

Highlighting what is in the works, what has come out, is informative. It is about keeping teh reader up-to-date if they didn't know.

Why do you feel like you constantly have to "educate" and inform users about Microsoft's latest failing project every chance you get?

It feels like you just sit at your computer, trying to find posts where you can shoehorn in news about Microsoft products. Someone mentioned Windows on ARM? Better tell them how developers are actually jumping on board and examples of how they are totally working on it!

You did the exact same thing for Windows 10 Mobile. Constantly mentioning which developers are doing what with the platform. It feels like you're ramming it down everyone's throats because you desperately wants Microsoft to succeed with pushing their products.

 

 

1 hour ago, GoodBytes said:

Where did I say "it will be great!"?

It's implied in your posts since you always talk about all the benefits of whatever Microsoft product the thread is about, or how any negative thing will soon not be a problem, or how bad alternatives are, etc.

In this particular post the person you quoted said that Windows on ARM could be a success, to which you replied "yes", and then you started talking about how big developers are jumping onboard the platform.

 

1 hour ago, GoodBytes said:

If I knew nothing about Android and I was in Sweden, I would like to know this, very much so.

You're missing the point. My point is that you gave 3 examples of programs that are being worked on for Windows on ARM.

3 programs are not enough. 100 programs are not enough. If you could give me a list of maybe 300 programs which were being worked on as first class citizens on Windows 10 on ARM, then they would be somewhat starting to scratch the surface of removing the "there are no apps for it" stigma. And I mean 300 of the most popular apps, not just 50 flashlight apps.

 

1 hour ago, GoodBytes said:

Visual Studio has tools and a native compiler that can take your C/C++/C# code for Win32 and compile it for native ARM64 with optimization options. 

You'll have a Win32 ARM64 version of your program. It will only run on Windows 10 on ARM system as a result. 

According to the developer guides I read, you need to choose the UWP development workload in Visual Studio in order to develop or port your code to ARM. To me, that sounds like you're limited to the UWP framework but maybe I am misunderstood things.

Can I for example take a Qt program using Vulcan components, recompile it to ARM, and just have it work without it being a UWP package?

[Donut417]

3 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

You act like they were failure in doing so.

I know they had products but last I looked, Google and Apple have the pie. Microsoft was never able to gain enough market share in the mobile market to matter or in tablets. So yes, those projects were failures. 

 

3 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I don't see making x86 programs run on tablets or phones saving Microsoft for the simple reason that using most x86 programs on a touch screen is very clunky.

Oh phones I agree its a stretch. But on tablets, not so much. Who says you have to use the touch screen? You could very well carry a wireless keyboard and mouse for situations where you need to use them. Granted I dont expect the software to perform as good, due to emulation having performance issues, but I think for the right software it could work fine for certain workloads. Such as using the x86 version of Office. Because the mobile version sucks. There are features in the x86 version that are extremely helpful, especially to students. 

 

3 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I think Microsoft are doing the right thing and giving up on their mobile platform. It has just sucked out a huge amount of cash from them for very little in return.

 

Though you are probably right about this. The fact is Google and Apple already have the pie. They pushed out Palm and Blackberry from the market pretty much. So it would be too difficult for Microsoft to get in to the phone market at this time. 

[LAwLz]

40 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

Oh phones I agree its a stretch. But on tablets, not so much. Who says you have to use the touch screen? You could very well carry a wireless keyboard and mouse for situations where you need to use them. Granted I dont expect the software to perform as good, due to emulation having performance issues, but I think for the right software it could work fine for certain workloads. Such as using the x86 version of Office. Because the mobile version sucks. There are features in the x86 version that are extremely helpful, especially to students. 

But if you're going to carry around a mouse and keyboard with your tablet my question becomes, why not get a laptop instead? 

[yian88]

Microsoft is a disaster themselves, im still amazed people give them money for their crap software.

[Donut417]

8 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

But if you're going to carry around a mouse and keyboard with your tablet my question becomes, why not get a laptop instead? 

1) Qualcomm chips can have cellular data built in. So you dont have to hotspot on your phone. As most carriers give unlimited data on phones and tablets 

2) Battery Life. ARM chips are just better if you want longer battery life. Though you could argue that you could get a Chromebook to get that kind of battery life

3) The form factor. Some like the tablet form factor. 

4) Size and weight. Tablets are small and light. For a student that has a shit load of books that could be nice. 

5) Choice of keyboard. You can use the keyboard that suits your needs. Or not have one if you dont want one. Plus that keyboard comes at a cost witch is added in to the price of the device. 

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, Donut417 said:

Battery Life. ARM chips are just better if you want longer battery life

From what we've seen with Windows on ARM devices, the best ARM offerings are no better than the best x86 offerings in this regard.

[Nowak]

5 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

1) Qualcomm chips can have cellular data built in. So you dont have to hotspot on your phone. As most carriers give unlimited data on phones and tablets 

2) Battery Life. ARM chips are just better if you want longer battery life. Though you could argue that you could get a Chromebook to get that kind of battery life

3) The form factor. Some like the tablet form factor. 

4) Size and weight. Tablets are small and light. For a student that has a shit load of books that could be nice. 

5) Choice of keyboard. You can use the keyboard that suits your needs. Or not have one if you dont want one. Plus that keyboard comes at a cost witch is added in to the price of the device. 

I think LAwLz' point is that carrying around a laptop is a whole lot less things to carry around than a tablet + mouse + keyboard. Most people want to reduce their EDC not over-complicate things aha

 

There are Windows on ARM laptops if you really do desire cellular data without needing to rely on your phone as a hotspot. I'd suggest avoiding the Snapdragon 835-based ones, though, but it'd really make your carry easier since everything is integrated.

[captain_to_fire]

I really don’t understand why did Microsoft abandoned support for single core Windows Phone 7 devices when they finally decided to support dual core Snapdragon S4 Pro? I remember when single core iPhone 3GS (until iOS 6) and iPhone 4 (until iOS 7), they still received software updates for a few years. 

[mr moose]

I'm not really sure why people insist there are more specific reasons for WP not succeeding, it seems pretty obvious to me that being faced with trying to wrestle market share from a mountain of entrenched IOS and Android users and not getting people to produce apps for it is all it took.  People can argue anything else they want but in my mind this is all it was.

[Thaldor]

3 hours ago, mr moose said:

I'm not really sure why people insist there are more specific reasons for WP not succeeding, it seems pretty obvious to me that being faced with trying to wrestle market share from a mountain of entrenched IOS and Android users and not getting people to produce apps for it is all it took.  People can argue anything else they want but in my mind this is all it was.

Mostly this. The aprt where Microsoft really failed was that they didn't bother to develope tools that would have been cost effective for developers to use (as in making the WP port would have been a press of a button from Android and/or iOS build) and that make the infinite cycle of not having developers because there's not enough users because there's not as many apps that users might want to use because developers far more likely make Android and iOS builds for bigger audience. To make it worse WP phones were lagging behind hardwarewise (at least the Nokia phones were far from iPhones and Android phones quite soon) which would have required even more work to port the app to WP because probable need to optimise the resource usage for at least same user experience.