Been thinking of upgrading to a HP Elite X3. Should I go thru with it or am I better off waiting to see for what MS has in store for the next "Windows 10 Phone"?
Upgrading to a Elite X3 now, is it worth it?
- Thread starter Prometheus2021
- Start date
Drael646464
New member
Hp might have a refresh this year. At least they have teased a product that is like the x3, but looks a bit difference saying no more about it than "this is how we imagine the future of the x3".
Here's the thing, the Elite x3 is the best definition of what windows 10 mobile can be right now and the best win 10 mobile device out there. And as shown by Zack, it's even going to get Cshell which will make it a much more powerful design. But then after that, what then I mean the surface phone will most likely have windows 10 on ARM rather than win 10 mobile. Not to forget that win 10 mobile wont have access to silverlight apps like whatsapp soon. Are you ok with that? Because as great as cshell is going to be it seems like a last step before win 10 on arm , making the elite x3 more of a transition stage device. If youre ok with that then by all means use the elite x3. If not, maybe wait for the surface phone
Still thinking about making the switch, still I don't want to but a new phone and it turns out MS comes out with a newer phone (Hopefully the "Surface" phone) OR do you guys think I'll be in the clear, and will have plenty of time to enjoy a new phone, and then buy the 'Surface" phone when it comes out?
fatclue_98
Retired Moderator
I don't believe there will be any new W10M handset anytime soon. The fabled Surface Phone is this year's McLaren which as we all know, was vaporware. The x3 refresh that was teased in Barcelona may not amount to much except for some hardware improvements like a better camera or something along those lines.
Sent from my Elite x3 on mTalk
Sent from my Elite x3 on mTalk
Jonahtheblaze
New member
I do not know, but i guess they would make new one with Snapdragon 835. Better to wait for couple months and see their update. The price also would be cheaper when the new one is released.
You can install a CShell build on the x3, but that does not mean MS will provide this update to it. There are people who hacked a CShell build to a Lumia 635
Last edited:
*If* there is going to be a new category defining mobile device with telephony (a "Surface" 'phone' if you will), my personal opinion is that it's likely to have a plethora of issues with the version 1 release (which would, of course, be improved with cumulative updates and firmware over time). I think the 2nd gen release of such a device would be the time to get on board.
Then, by the time any 2nd gen device comes out, the 1st gen should be stable providing a decent user experience thanks to updates, and also available cheaper than it would be when it was first released. In that case, 2019 at the earliest.
I personally can't see MS releasing a 'holding' device, like a smartphone as we know them today, in the interim of any such device being released. Which leaves OEMs to pick up the slack. Very little to nothing seems to be happening on that front.
As someone mentioned, HP did tease a device earlier this year but nothing appears to be known about it. Will it just be an X3 with updated processor, better camera, etc?
If any new smartphones running W10M are to be released I'd imagine it would be between October to December, in the build up to the holiday season, to maximise sales. But I'd have thought we'd have heard about them by now.
So, other than a potentially new HP phone, I can't see anything in the terms of new W10M smartphones on the horizon.
If W10M does it for you now and you want to upgrade then, from what I read, the X3 is a decent device. I think it should last you plenty of time for the reasons above.
Sent from mTalk
After much consideration I'm going to wait until the holidays, if something new happens to come out I'm getting it, if not I'll just hold out until the 'Surface Phone' comes out, my Lumia 950XL should last two more years, if it really has to. Hopefully something new pops up within the end of this year and next year. If worst comes to worst, I'll just get an X3 with the refreshed hardware. I really like the design on that phone, makes it looks slick and fancy at the same time, plus the dock is pretty cool too, and that CShell, I would definitely install it on that phone.
Drael646464
New member
Well the "new device" isn't a candybar slab. So it doesn't really do away with the need for a regular old style of device, any more that a hybrid completely replaces the desire for a laptop.
As such, I can absolutely see a regular device from MSFT, along with Andromeda. It may be something a bit fancy though, like keyboard case, and projector. Something not exactly conventional either.
In addition to the new form factor of Andromeda for multi-tasking, they need something that makes immediate use of cshell/continuum, on the go (away from a dock). A folding device with a screen gap can't do that. Especially if they want it folding up small.
The only thing that really can, with current technology is a table projection - which require a beefy battery and thus conventional slab design.
So yeah, I can totally see the case for both. They are essentially paving the way for the folding tablet, with flexible graphene screen. Which will take five years to ever release, and probably another 5-10 to get cheap enough for mass markets rather than just the rich elite/CEOs and so on.
In the meantime they need a platform for a) something with multiple displays, and the ability to switch between them
b) continuum/cshell on a mobile device.
It's simply not possible ATM to have both those on one device right now, and no OEMs are even remotely looking they will lead with that level of innovation. If MSFT wants to carve out this roadmap to a folding tablet, full PC, in your pocket, down the graphene road, a decade or more from now, it's going to have to lead.
If it doesn't lead, in this, an obvious future tech, there's no real point in even trying to be "ahead of the curve", and 'the one OS on everything".
Much like they are paving the way for mixed reality with fluent design, mixed reality headsets and HoloLens, but the intended goal is just a true glasses like form factor without the bulk, MSFT essentially need a development platform, and a userbase via enabling technologies.
I can easily see them creating the enabling technologies for the graphene folding tablet well in advance - because nobody benefits more from much bigger screens on smartphones come tablets than the ruler of the desktop space, the ones with the ecosystem that does more, but is struggling the scale down.
For the exact same reason, they benefit more from AR than anyone else - big screens. It's only the tiny screens that favour 'basic' and 'freemium'. I can totally see the plan there, the bigger the screen size, the more likely a person is to want desktop software and desktop OS. Eventually, all the screens will be big, no matter how mobile either via folding or scrolling, or via projection into the eye (AR).
They should absolutely be doing everything they can to bridge to that future, even if it costs large amounts of money - if they do, in twenty years they could have entirely taken back the OS/tech space and be the highest grossing tech company.
Nobody else is even focusing in the right places to achieve that - apple and google are both focused on the present, on small screens - simple OSes with low grade software apps, all entirely 2 dimensional, and optimised for smartphones. Apple is the only one with the history to even try, and they have basically benched macOS in favour of iOS. Google seems to be making a play for it with fushia, but its definitely too little too late. No way they'll be able to catch up on the desktop grade software plane.
Indeed if MSFT was successful, in the long run, they'd both have to refocus their business plan quite a big. Apple is almost all iPhone, which would die, and google, while they currently rule search, that could easily be taken from them without android to power it, and with bing not that far behind. AI and IoT maybe. I run off in speculation obviously, it all could fall on its behind, but the sense of the strategy is logical, and crisp - bigger screens, deeper software = MSFT has the advantage and the type of developers that needs behind them.
Also I don't reckon version 1 of Andromeda will be that buggy. Fortunately it appears to be based on win10m, which is currently undergoing a purely bugfix phase. I expect all the bugfixing on one, will be being applied to the other. By the time it's released (next year most likely, maybe early or mid IMO), it'll have benefited from a whole year of bugfixing via feature2, as well as its own internal testing.
It's not going to be flawless, but it's a huge benefit to NOT have the issues that have unfortunately plagued win10m waaay too long.
It will however, cost a bundle. Two screens, a high tech hinge, and no doubt the same wireless display tech as the surface book - yeah, its not going to be cheap. And if the possible projector slab style surface device is also released, that tech is relatively new as well (touch via infrared, and projection at high lumens without too much battery drain), so I doubt that'll be cheap either.
Unless they also released some budget variation without the projection, which lol, its not going to happen, it'll be new iPhone money territory, maybe even beyond.
Last edited by a moderator:
fatclue_98
Retired Moderator
With the prices of upcoming iPhones and Galaxy Notes being bandied about, even a $900 premium Windows phone is going to seem a relative bargain. The others may price themselves out of the market for most folks and let Windows and BlackBerry back in the game.
We need the choice. The 2-horse race isn't sustainable and it will hurt the marketplace.
We need the choice. The 2-horse race isn't sustainable and it will hurt the marketplace.
I see this mentioned all the time, when it pertains to mobile. But yet desktop is pretty much a 1-horse race. Why is that not an issue? Why the dichotomy?
I don't agree that a 2-horse race is an issue. Of course, the more the better, but at least there are two horses!
Drael646464
New member
Well true. It's unlike MSFT will release anything beyond 1000, and that's where the new iPhone is supposed to sit lol.
The s8 isn't that cheap either. Even with two screens, or projector technology there are reasonable odds whatever MSFT released it'll be cheaper.
I think the keyONEs done alright. Which is good to see, because as much as I like screen space, physical keyboard will be superior until the day they create consumer haptic feedback built into screens. Muscle memory is irreplaceable.
Its more like a two horse race. Mac OS has some 10 percent marketshare. That's not discountable. You can easily discount the small userbase of Linux or ChromeOS perhaps. Although neither of those are going anywhere soon, and bb10 has already be forced out of the smartphone market, so the two areas don't function exactly the same.
Basically in that you can install windows on a mac machine, mac on a windows machine, or Linux in any combination - you have the choice. You can even put android on a desktop, or windows on a chromebook (some).
But smartphones depend on being shipped with the OS. If people don't make the phones, you don't get the OS. Its flat out determined by the hardware that's being sold, and what the OEMs put on it. So if they only create two, or even just one OS on their devices - that's what you get.
So that I think is the reason.
Well that and, I don't think apple or google really "court" their smartphone users, in the sense of trying to "encourage them" into the platform, so much as trying to prevent them from leaving. Whereas windows is kind of like an invitation to dinner, with a guestlist and an event schedule, ios and android and OSX are almost more like a weird flier, where before long you realise your trapped in a lockin in some weird cult, and there's no way to leave.
The thought of a company (google), who has increased from no ads, to three ads, to five ads, in search, from no ads, to 30 second long ads in youtube, and whose whole operating system is an advertising platform OR apple who's properitary connectors, streaming, networking, deliberate lack of interopability with other systems, and locked in ecosystem and general lock-in, lock down, seems to get worse with each passing year - the thought of these two, not only having complete encouragement, but nowhere else to go - it's a scary thought to some, myself included. One end is ad creep until someone is prying your eyeballs open, or advertising to you while you sleep, like free to air tv on crack, another is an ecosystem that escalates into apple sending out a hitman if you should decide to cease using their products (exaggerations, but true general notions all the same)
These two smartphone companies are increasing strongly anti-consumer. For them in particular, the sense of security in 'my customers have nowhere to go, I'll treat them how I like", the lack of competition is quite concerning. Microsoft has never acted like it can't be beaten, and never treated its customers like they are prisoners.
FYI, looks like googles fushia OS, has a home screen/desktop with 'suggestions' directly baked in. IE the main page, is an actual ad. Of course amazon is no better.
Monopolies are usually dangerous because of these qualities. But MSFT has never been this way for various reasons.
Should either of them even have complete tech control apple or google, it would in terms of tech advancement be almost like living in a totalitarian state IMO- our way, or no way. I mean what grows worse with each passing year is not going to get better if the consumers feel even more locked in, like they can't go anywhere else.
This is part of why I think the future of MSFT, might actually be important for the future of mankind, believe it or not. Laugh if you like.
They have ALWAYS encouraged development, tinkering, and freedom on their platform. They are strongly supportive of indie ventures, hardware or software. They have some vague sense of social responsibility even if that's not 100 percent a container for preventing wrong doing, it prevents them from making immediate leaps that I feel google, facebook or apple would happily do in the name of profits.
I mean I don't think a company is ever 'benign', but the things baked into the MSFT brand for historical reasons, just work out leaning that way. That and their profit sources are diverse. They are not dependant financially on this sort of hearts and minds trap the other two are.
If google or apple lost consumer hearts and minds, they could be over. If Microsoft did, they'd still be selling software and services, still be catering also to enterprise, because some of their products, even consumer facing ones, are sort of brand invisible.
These two things, and the nature of the desktop market, means that MSFT never really has motive to "act like that" even if it had total market dominance. Whereas Apple and Google only have motive "not to act like that" when people are NOT buying their products. They only play nice when they are under threat.
Last edited by a moderator:
fatclue_98
Retired Moderator
Apple is solely responsible for their poor showing in the desktop arena. Poor driver support and poor compatibility with peripherals among other things. Microsoft adopted the standard at the time which was IBM and flourished. Now Windows is the standard and the others must be compatible with it and branch off or be relegated to also-ran status like Linux, etc.
The mobile sphere is in its infancy like Microsoft was when they released 95. MacOS could've been a player and chose another path. PalmOS and BlackBerry stuck to their guns and look what happened to them. There is room for another player but instead of being another face in the crowd they need to differentiate. I'm not into this whole AR thing but I'd be foolish to discount it as a CEO. People seem to be interested in it so it could be a distinct feature if done right. The pocket PC idea is always attractive to the road warrior and that also needs to be looked at. But nowhere does it say one device has to do both. Nowhere does it say every consumer wants every feature in just one device. Ford has a world-class sports car in the GT but it also has the F-150 for the tradesmen and the Explorer for the soccer mom and the Fiesta for the starving college student.
Microsoft already has a world-class 2 in 1 and a formidable gaming rig. Why does the Surface Unicorn have to be all things to all people? That won't work because the teenager could care less for Excel or Continuum. But he/she would like a good AR experience and be able to play Xbox games while away from home and do their Snapchat thing and whatever else teens do. Right now neither iOS or Android can do that so it's not out of the question.
Right now Microsoft has the Explorer and the GT, but the F-150 is the world's best selling vehicle and there's a lot of budget-minded people that need to be served. Android covers both those areas and look where they are.
Whatever, my fortunes don't rise or fall on the success or failure of a tech company so they can do what they will.
Hmmmm, this was interesting, and true, but it avoided my point about the 2-faced view. :amaze: This opinion seems to be as much related to which company a person is a fan of than anything else.
For the record, I don't have a problem with Microsoft's >90% market share in desktop, and I don't have a problem with Apple and Google's >99% market share in mobile. They are all at the positions they are because they provided the right product at the right time. This is capitalism at its finest. May the best man win!
fatclue_98
Retired Moderator
I don't see a double standard. As I mentioned, Apple is in the position it's in by its own hand. But that aside, there are at least viable options in the desktop space even if it is dominated by Windows. Linux, Mac OSX, and to a lesser extent ChromeOS, are used everyday and receive regular updates. Chromebooks are seeing an uptick in our schools so that's great. Linux is not for everybody especially if you're unaware of the phrase "sudo". OSX will always be preferred by those in the graphic arts world and that suits me just fine. See, each has its own little corner of the world and each can survive on its own because there's something to offer to their users.
The mobile world on the other hand is all about apps and how to share media. Android and iOS have this and the others don't. Even if you have an outdated Linux distro that your newer printer doesn't support you can still put that document on a jump drive and get it printed. Not as easy but certainly not impossible. Want to redeem your Dunkin Donuts rewards points on a Windows phone? Ain't gonna happen no matter what you do. I trust I've made my point a little clearer.
You did, but you're saying that two giants in mobile isn't good, but one giant plus a couple other little players in desktop IS good. I understand where you're coming from, but I don't agree with you.
The reason I mention personal preference is because the only place I see this monopoly complaint is on Microsoft mobile forums. I realize that probably everyone here is, or was, a Windows Phone fan, and it pains us to see it fall. Hence the irritation with the so-called monopoly.
Either way, there is no monopoly in mobile, unless you're grouping Apple and Google together. Android has 80% of the market share by devices, but Apple rules in direct profits. Apple also is the trend setter to a point. They are each very powerful in their own way, but at the same time they keep each other from being a monopoly.
In desktop, Apple has very little market share, and they're the 2nd largest. Although, I'm sure they profit, or they wouldn't do it. But Microsoft rules on the desktop. It would be a whole lot easier to rule Microsoft a monopoly than either Google or Apple.
I believe that having a problem with mobile's current situation but being fine with desktop's is speaking out of both sides of the mouth.
True, but this is Dunkin Donuts' problem. It's not Apple or Google's fault, unless you're going to blame them for being successful. Like any other sensible business, Dunkin Donuts goes where the people are. Do you know why O'Hare International Airport is in Chicago and not in Podunk, Wyoming?
fatclue_98
Retired Moderator
If Windows and BlackBerry were viable options I would have no problem with the two-headed monster. Let me rephrase that. If Windows and BlackBerry were viable options for the average consumer I'd be okay with it. People like us can make even webOS work in today's world what with all the patches and whatnot. But that's not reasonable. From what I've read, Sailfish OS seems like something I'd like to try someday and it may be able to run Android apps better than the ART on BlackBerry.
Mobile requires extra functionality that you don't need on desktop because you have a full-fledged browser to help you along. Many websites can't or don't run properly on a mobile browser otherwise you wouldn't need apps in the first place.
Similar threads
Trending Posts
-
PSA: It doesn't matter if your computer runs on ARM, all of your apps will work on Windows 11
- Started by Windows Central
- Replies: 8
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram