11-30-2015 04:25 PM
50 12
tools
  1. a5cent's Avatar
    ^ Ehm…

    Does W10M support multiple versions of the .NET framework?
    > No. It doesn't even support one (this could be split up into dozens of individual .NET related technologies that W10M doesn't support).

    Does W10M come with built in support for IIS ?
    > No

    Does W10M support Windows Management Instrumentation?
    > No

    Does W10M come with a configurable firewall?
    > No

    Does W10M support Hyper-V?
    > No

    Does W10M support Active Directory Lightweight Directory Service?
    > No

    Does W10M support any of the gazillion legacy DB access technologies, that are still often used in native code applications?
    > No

    For many of the more serious software titles, those things are necessities because they won't run without them! And that list goes on and on and on! There are a gazillion W10 features like this that W10M doesn't include.

    You can also look at it this way:

    The space required to install W10M and 1st party apps on my L830 (off the top of my head) is about 4 GB. My W10 installation, with almost all software and apps deleted/removed, is over three times that size. Where do you think that size difference comes from? Obviously, that huge difference in size can’t be attributed only to the handful of DLLs (shell32.dll, ole32.dll, etc) that implement the Win32 API!

    Compared to W10, the idea that an implementation of Win32 is the only thing W10M omits is just flat out incorrect.

    Don't get me wrong. There's nothing wrong with that. It's actually a good thing, because W10M couldn't achieve it's goals as a low-cost and (comparatively) light weight OS if it were otherwise.
    Last edited by a5cent; 11-24-2015 at 07:39 AM. Reason: last scentence
    theefman and colinkiama like this.
    11-24-2015 04:50 AM
  2. seb_r's Avatar
    RT was killed by uninformed journalists who just kept repeating the fact that it was a "crippled" version of windows that couldn't run .exe applications.
    RT was killed by nobody else than MSFT! No upgrade to Win10 and therefore no universal apps. Not the first time they drop support for hardware quickly.
    11-24-2015 05:05 AM
  3. a5cent's Avatar
    I think you're interpretation of what is Windows 10 may be different from Microsoft's. You are looking from a user perspective, saying that the desktop UI and having Win32 compatibility is required. Microsoft is looking at it from the kernel, drivers and focusing on UWP which is supported on IoT, phone, desktop, Xbox. For them, Win32 is a compatibility layer, more so when you start looking at the vision of Centennial which starts pulling old Win32 apps into a more managed UWP VM.

    I don't deny that the average user thinks Windows is a PC with desktop that runs any Win32 legacy app, but I'm not sure that's what Microsoft sees for the future. And for that reason, the phone really is running Windows 10.
    First off, let me be clear that I'm not looking at this from a user’s perspective at all. I'm looking at it from the perspective of computer science, and what people working in the field generally feel defines an OS. Most would say that two OSes can only be considered the same if they can run the same software. That's one of the most fundamental requirements, and W10M and W10 don't meet that requirement. Period. As far as I'm concerned, at least from a technical perspective and for the present time, that's the end of same-vs-not-same debate.

    I understand you're getting around that definition by declaring millions of Windows software titles (the things Windows users care most about) as obsolete, and by relegating at least 2/3rds of W10 to "compatibility layer" status. In short, you're saying everything that is different is obsolete, so they are the same. I agree that this will someday make sense, but adopting that definition and related terminology today seems very premature to me. I understand that you're ignoring the current reality and looking more at the conceptual idea of where W10 is headed, but currently that mark on the timeline is still quite a ways off.

    However, I agree that W10M is the real future of Windows. Some here envision everything eventually just becoming W10 (once an x86 based phone is released), but if anything is eventually phased out, that is far more likely to be W10, not W10M! More precisely, what will be phased out are the many GB's worth of legacy functionality W10 contains, which serve no purpose in a purely UWP based world. Whatever we're left with at that point, and whatever it will be called, it will be a lot closer to today's W10M than today's W10. In regard to this issue I think we're on the same page.

    The thing is, we're still many years away from the point of transitioning away from W10. In regard to transitioning, I'd also add that I've never heard of Centennial placing Win32 software in a managed UWP VM. AFAIK Centennial is more accurately described as a combination of run-time file system virtualization and dev-time automated installer repackaging. It doesn't, in any way, allow Win32 software to run on the UWP, so I wouldn't count that as a meaningful step towards getting most Win32 software migrated over to the UWP. Centennial's goal is to make Win32 software distributable through the store. We're nowhere close to the point where we could easily convert Win32 software into universal apps.

    In summary, all the things that could/would eventually make it reasonable to give both OSes the same moniker are all still very much in the future. I see no benefit to confusing people by introducing terminology that will be technically inaccurate for many years to come. Why not just introduce that terminology when it actually matches reality?

    Anyway, reasoning aside, I understand your fundamental point. AFAIK you could be right about MS (you?) and myself judging what W10 is from different perspectives. Truth is I have no idea what MS thinks the name "W10" does or does not refer to. Based on the fact that MS initially called W10M just W10, then went with W10 for Phones, then settled on W10M, and that we're now seeing some people go back to just W10, I think it's clear that MS are themselves very much lacking a clear idea of what W10 is and what it isn't. They wouldn't have that problem if they'd just stick with a nomenclature that reflects reality as it is today, as I'm trying to do.
    Last edited by a5cent; 11-24-2015 at 01:35 PM. Reason: spelling only
    Ed Boland likes this.
    11-24-2015 05:27 AM
  4. Ed Boland's Avatar
    I can't say what MS is thinking (or even directly responsible for) in terms of their W10 vs W10M communication strategy, but I can comment on the above:

    not happening

    If (or more likely when) an x86 based WM phone is released, it will actually run W10, not W10M. So, you're right that we'll then be able to say, without lying, that such a device is running W10. However, that doesn't mean W10M will have served its purpose and just fade away.

    Both W10 and W10M have their place and their role to play. Neither can fully replace the other without MS loosing many strategically important capabilities. W10M will stick around for as long as MS decides to compete with Android in the affordable smartphone and tablet market.

    The day MS terminates W10M, and leaves us only with full W10, is likely the day MS exits the smartphone market altogether.
    You're right; Windows 10 Mobile will still exist.. for ARM based phones. But only for as long as the current ARM devices are supported, or until they're EOL'd.

    I can't speak for Microsoft's strategy either, however, looking at their history, one can see a pattern. I think once they get the Intel x86 phones rolling, they'll be able to compete with the low end affordable market as well as the high end. They'll start to produce all sorts of x86 flavored smartphones; Flagship and budget.

    Then, Windows 10 "Mobile" will be sentenced to death row where WP8.1 is already awaiting execution in a neighboring cell, where they'll follow in the ashes of WP7, Windows RT, etc.

    These are just my personal thoughts and opinions of course, and do not reflect the actual plans or mobile strategies of Microsoft. Heck, what do I know...
    11-24-2015 09:19 PM
  5. badMojo69's Avatar
    OMG it's just W10. https://forums.windowscentral.com/e?...token=cppHfSyq
    The desktop just has additional support, but at it's core its just W10.

    Say it with me it's just W10. Once the intel chips come out "Surface Phone" my guess is you'll be able to run non W10 apps from the phone.

    There is different OS...it's W10.
    BaritoneGuy likes this.
    11-24-2015 09:46 PM
  6. a5cent's Avatar
    I You're right; Windows 10 Mobile will still exist.. for ARM based phones. But only for as long as the current ARM devices are supported, or until they're EOL'd.

    <snipped>

    I think once they get the Intel x86 phones rolling, they'll be able to compete with the low end affordable market as well as the high end. They'll start to produce all sorts of x86 flavored smartphones; Flagship and budget.

    Then, Windows 10 "Mobile" will be sentenced to death row where WP8.1 is already awaiting execution in a neighboring cell, where they'll follow in the ashes of WP7, Windows RT, etc.
    .
    This is where you (and others) err. The primary fallacy appears to be the idea that MS could compete in the low-end/affordable mobile market with W10. Resource consumption and hardware requirements preclude it from doing so however. That's the entire raison d'etre of W10M. That's the job W10M was specifically designed to do. If W10 could achieve that, then the last five years of W10M would just have been an incredibly stupid and expensive detour, just to end up where MS already was (running Windows on ARM a.k.a RT has been possible for a very long time already).

    Anyway, you seem to imagine W10M being far more strongly tied to a particular CPU architecture than it really is.

    MS is now at (or extremely close to) the point where they could just press a button and wait an hour (more or less), and then have a version of W10M that runs on an x86 CPU. W10M is not about supporting ARM CPUs. It's only about running well on affordable hardware with limited resources. Whether that's an ARM or an x86 based configuration is pretty much irrelevant.
    Last edited by a5cent; 11-25-2015 at 05:44 AM. Reason: spelling
    Ed Boland likes this.
    11-25-2015 05:00 AM
  7. colinkiama's Avatar
    Why hasn't thread been closed yet? Hasn't the OP's question been answered already?
    BaritoneGuy likes this.
    11-25-2015 05:03 AM
  8. Pete's Avatar
    Why hasn't thread been closed yet? Hasn't the OP's question been answered already?
    I think you're missing the point of the thread here. The discussion here is regarding the confusion between "Windows 10" and "Windows 10 Mobile".
    a5cent and Ed Boland like this.
    11-25-2015 05:16 AM
  9. a5cent's Avatar
    Why hasn't thread been closed yet? Hasn't the OP's question been answered already?
    As long as people like badMojo69 and others drink the marketing cool-aid rather than develop an understanding of the current technical reality, the question will never be answered.
    11-25-2015 05:16 AM
  10. colinkiama's Avatar
    As long as people like badMojo69 and others drink the marketing cool-aid rather than develop an understanding of the current technical reality, the question will never be answered.
    Honestly I don't think anyone would be bothered to actually say Windows 10 Mobile. Just call it windows 10. You could say the 'Mobile' part is just an edition like 'pro', 'home', 'enterprise' etc

    Wasn't the technical part something like having a similar kernel, UI, same code used to make apps etc. (correct me)
    11-25-2015 03:56 PM
  11. a5cent's Avatar
    Honestly I don't think anyone would be bothered to actually say Windows 10 Mobile. Just call it windows 10. You could say the 'Mobile' part is just an edition like 'pro', 'home', 'enterprise' etc

    Wasn't the technical part something like having a similar kernel, UI, same code used to make apps etc. (correct me)
    All the differences between W10 and W10M I've so far mentioned are technical. If you didn't understand them, then going into more detail is unlikely to help you understanding why the edition-analogy is utterly flawed (all W10 editions share the same APIs and run all the same software, while W10M does not). Maybe this is a better way of stating it:

    Imagine we'd delete the 'W10 Mobile' and 'W10 Mobile Insider Preview' forums, and dump their contents into the corresponding 'W10' and 'W10 Insider Preview' forums! Also imagine we'd remove all 'M' or 'Mobile' designations from all posts including thread titles. If these two OSes are truly the same, then that would be the logical thing to do. Would that make posts clearer? Would that make information easier to find? Would that make the forums better?

    If you don't think that's a good idea, and you'd prefer those forums to remain separate, then ask yourself why. When you know, you'll have your own personal explanation as to why you think these two OSes are different and should be treated as such, terminology included.

    You can then also ask yourself why we don't need separate forums for home, pro and enterprise editions of W10, and you'll have discovered the flaw in that edition-analogy as well.
    11-25-2015 05:02 PM
  12. colinkiama's Avatar
    All the differences between W10 and W10M I've so far mentioned are technical. If you didn't understand them, then going into more detail is unlikely to help you understanding why the edition-analogy is utterly flawed (all W10 editions share the same APIs and run all the same software, while W10M does not). Maybe this is a better way of stating it:

    Imagine we'd delete the 'W10 Mobile' and 'W10 Mobile Insider Preview' forums, and dump their contents into the corresponding 'W10' and 'W10 Insider Preview' forums! Also imagine we'd remove all 'M' or 'Mobile' designations from all posts including thread titles. If these two OSes are truly the same, then that would be the logical thing to do. Would that make posts clearer? Would that make information easier to find? Would that make the forums better?

    If you don't think that's a good idea, and you'd prefer those forums to remain separate, then ask yourself why. When you know, you'll have your own personal explanation as to why you think these two OSes are different and should be treated as such, terminology included.

    You can then also ask yourself why we don't need separate forums for home, pro and enterprise editions of W10, and you'll have discovered the flaw in that edition-analogy as well.

    Now that you mentioned it, I understand why this thread is still here. Regular customers will see 'Windows 10' and assume the PC version. Even saying 'the mobile version of windows 10' would make more sense. It really is just to market the OS. To make it seem like it's the same everywhere with the UWP but the actual experience is different. Is it true that they marketed windows 8 RT like this too?
    taymur likes this.
    11-25-2015 05:30 PM
  13. a5cent's Avatar
    Now that you mentioned it, I understand why this thread is still here. Regular customers will see 'Windows 10' and assume the PC version. Even saying 'the mobile version of windows 10' would make more sense. It really is just to market the OS. To make it seem like it's the same everywhere with the UWP but the actual experience is different. Is it true that they marketed windows 8 RT like this too?
    To be clear, we so far only have a few tech sites referring to W10M as just 'W10'. We don't actually know if there is a concerted effort behind that, or if MS has anything to do with it at all. That's just speculation.

    It just looks like W10 and W10M are being marketed as being the same, while in reality that is only partially true. Windows RT was never marketed as being the same. However, RT was also never explicitly marketed as being completely different either (i.e. incompatible with all Windows software).
    taymur likes this.
    11-25-2015 05:50 PM
  14. pallentx's Avatar
    Windows 10 for desktop is a superset of Windows 10 for mobile. Everything W10M runs also runs on the desktop (with a few exceptions), but the desktop adds legacy stuff and other more advanced features that make sense for a desktop. You can think of W10 for mobile as the core of the OS that all the other versions share - everything required to support the universal app framework. Hololens will have extras unique to that hardware. The desktop will have extras unique to desktop computing. The Xbox will have its own. Even W10M has a few "uniques" - like a subsystem for making voice calls and texts and connecting to cellular networks.
    a5cent likes this.
    11-26-2015 09:06 AM
  15. pallentx's Avatar
    Now that you mentioned it, I understand why this thread is still here. Regular customers will see 'Windows 10' and assume the PC version. Even saying 'the mobile version of windows 10' would make more sense. It really is just to market the OS. To make it seem like it's the same everywhere with the UWP but the actual experience is different. Is it true that they marketed windows 8 RT like this too?
    I don't think actual customers were confused about RT and they wont be confused about Windows 10. The only place I saw any real confusion on RT was on tech blogs by writers and commenters. In the real world, people I talked to understood the difference and just weren't interested in RT because there weren't many apps for it.

    As for 10, right now we have the same problem, but Windows 10 was the end goal to address this problem. Now that there is a common app framework that runs on all "Windows", developers can reach more users with one set of code. I don't know if this strategy will work - time will tell, but its not the same thing we saw with 8 and RT.

    Its difficult to market that your OSes have a common app framework, Its easier for people to get that its all windows 10 and everything runs apps for windows 10. I don't think anyone is going to buy a Windows Phone and be disappointed that it doesn't have IIS.
    a5cent likes this.
    11-26-2015 09:18 AM
  16. a5cent's Avatar
    I don't think anyone is going to buy a Windows Phone and be disappointed that it doesn't have IIS.
    I agree with all your points except two:

    1)
    You're taking my remark about IIS slightly out of context.

    The point of mentioning IIS was to counter the FUD in regard to Win32 being the "only" part of W10 that W10M omits. Nothing more, nothing less. Those who know what IIS is aren't likely to be confused by any of this

    2)
    At this point in this thread, the only argument left to defend calling both OSes by the same name is: "it causes no harm and people won't be confused".

    Well, that claim has already been proven false many times over in these very forums. Last time MS called both OSes just W10 I was regularly explaining to people: "no, your future W10 phone won't run desktop software so don't worry about how awkward that will be without a mouse".

    Sure, we can educate and correct people until the cows come home, but is that really the mark of a good marketing message? Something that forces us to repeatedly explain what a product can't do?

    Oh yeah, and just wait until the x86 phones running actual (full W10) are released. Then we can start explaining how some W10 devices can run W10 desktop software while other W10 devices can't. Nope... not confusing to the layman at all /s

    There's got to be a better way to market these devices and the innovations surrounding MS' shared UWP that doesn't distort technical reality to this extent.
    11-26-2015 10:25 AM
  17. pallentx's Avatar
    It comes down to what is the OS. They share the same kernel. W10 for desktop runs the apps Window for phone runs. There is a common core here. In previous versions, we didn't say that Windows Ultimate edition was a different OS from Windows Home because Ultimate had more features. Even Windows Server is still considered Windows. I realize the gap is much wider between Phone and Desktop with 10, but clearly you don't have to have all the same features to call it the same OS.

    Right now the #1 priority in Microsoft IMO is to promote the universal app ecosystem. If that is the focus of the company, it makes sense that the marketing would call it one OS and focus on the one platform they all have in common. Yeah, there may be some confusion, but if they accomplish the goal, that's fine.
    11-26-2015 07:45 PM
  18. a5cent's Avatar
    ^ Yeah, I understand why MS might be taking this approach. I think you're right about that. For the reasons mentioned I just disagree that it's a good idea, in addition to seeming dishonest.

    Taking your argument to the extreme, I could argue W10 should really just be called MS DOS, because MS-DOS and W10 both have a command line and both can run the same batch scripts, i.e. at their most basic level, they are "the same". The W10 edition of MS-DOS just has some extra features. ☺ I know that's ludicrous, but if we forget about all the technical details (which the average consumer doesn't know about), then calling W10 MS-DOS appears theoretically no less valid than calling W10M just W10.

    The question we must then obviously answer is how different two OSes must be, before calling them different editions of the same OS becomes dishonest or more confusing to the average consumer than helpful.

    Admittedly that is debatable, but IMHO in this case shouldn't be. As soon as one OS supports an additional and coequal programing and runtime environment, which enables an entirely new/different class of software (Win32/desktop), you've gone past the point where it's the same OS with some additional tacked on features.
    11-27-2015 02:29 AM
  19. Paolo Ferrazza's Avatar
    Marketing headlines are for ignorant people, for the ignorant windows10 is actually the same, or at least it should be. What I mean is: when the 90% of the 10% of software that common people use everyday is both available on w10 and w10m then the marketing statement is correct. Then we know that is not true, marketing is about perception.

    When the user can use browser, office, system apps, mainstream apps and games on both platforms then the experience for them is actually the same.

    So it just comes down to the everlasting problem: are there enough "mainstream apps and games" (universal version) available? Not enough, yet.
    Last edited by Paolo Ferrazza; 11-27-2015 at 10:15 AM.
    a5cent likes this.
    11-27-2015 04:49 AM
  20. taymur's Avatar
    Marketing headlines are for ignorant people, for the ignorant windows10 is actually the same, or at least it should be. What I mean is: when the 90% of the 10% of software that common people use everyday is both available on w10 and w10m then the marketing statement is correct. Then we know that is not true, marketing is about perception.
    Using this information makes it deception.
    11-29-2015 02:11 AM
  21. Paolo Ferrazza's Avatar
    Using this information makes it deception.
    Well yeah, marketing=subtle deception ;)

    Like the bra shown by models, it is telling you you'll become supersexy, well you won't :D
    11-29-2015 03:44 PM
  22. DoctorPizza's Avatar
    Pete is surely correct in noting the "tech" press significantly contributed to RT's demise. Some reviewers viewed it as a tablet, while others viewed it as a laptop, while each critiqued it for how it didn't live up to what they thought it was.

    Few understood it was simultaneously both and neither.

    Who's at fault is debatable. We could argue MS was at fault for failing to communicate what it was, raising false expectations, or for neglecting to explain who it was for. The tech press could also be faulted for being technically incompetent and just not understanding it, but that's nothing new.

    Either way it doesn't really matter. That chapter is over.
    And the people buying it, who didn't get what it was for, they're to blame too?

    Surface RT was a solution in search of a problem.
    Laura Knotek and taymur like this.
    11-29-2015 05:21 PM
  23. a5cent's Avatar
    And the people buying it, who didn't get what it was for, they're to blame too?


    Surface RT was a solution in search of a problem.
    I'm not sure what your point is. The RT tangent of this discussion was about the factors contributing to RT's failure as a mass market consumer product. Few people are trendsetters or in a position to influence public perception; certainly not the set of people you mentioned. So, no, I'd say they aren't to blame.

    Not sure I agree that RT was a solution in need of a problem (IMHO it's more that too few cared about the problems it solved, like the cost of an Office license, or Windows security), but it's probably not worth getting into anymore.
    Last edited by a5cent; 11-30-2015 at 02:28 AM.
    taymur likes this.
    11-29-2015 08:59 PM
  24. taymur's Avatar
    Ok this thread is derailing a little bit.

    The initial questions was, why is Microsoft doing this again? by "this" i mean set people to false expectations.

    The easy way to look at this is by doing the Mom and Dad test.

    If Mom or Dad watched the Ad or read The verge's article that says: windows 10 is now on the lumia 950, then watched the video where Tom connects it to a Screen, Keyboard and mouse will she think that this is how computers are looking these days? and go buy one for her little son as a surprise?

    or will she understand that this mini computer will not run anything more than her normal smartphone can run?

    honestly i am pretty sure they will be confused, and think this is how computers have became in 2015.
    a5cent likes this.
    11-30-2015 03:06 AM
  25. pallentx's Avatar
    And the people buying it, who didn't get what it was for, they're to blame too?

    Surface RT was a solution in search of a problem.
    I bought a Surface RT and don't regret it one bit. It more than lived up to what I bought it for. The only disappointment I had was there weren't more apps developed for it. My father-in-law also bought one and still uses it every day. He just told me when we got together this thanksgiving how much he still enjoys it. Imagine that, a 70+ year old man not confused at all about what the device is for and still finds it useful.

    As for the topic at hand, I don't consider it deceptive at all for MS to call all the devices Windows 10 devices. They are defining this new universal platform. Its important that the marketing is clear that all these devices are part of one platform. Its important that developers understand that they can target phones, tablets, Xbox, Hololens, etc with one app if they want to. The fact that features will vary for different form factors should be obvious common sense.
    11-30-2015 04:25 PM
50 12

Similar Threads

  1. Lumia 950 Notification Sounds not working?
    By Windows Central Question in forum Microsoft Lumia 950
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-02-2015, 05:54 PM
  2. Using Hey Cortana bypasses PIN and iris scanning
    By dmm96452 in forum Microsoft Lumia 950
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 11-23-2015, 11:21 AM
  3. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-23-2015, 01:59 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-22-2015, 01:16 AM
  5. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-22-2015, 01:03 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD