[oldpueblo]

You still missed the point. The way you state it makes it seem like they will release major updates for ALL devices. That's the real question here. If they are then why are we even talking about this? Because carriers have to update all windows phones with major updates in perpetuity! See what I mean? They can still be the issue here.

MS wants to update them all, I'd hazard a guess that that's a safe assumption. But the carriers very likely do not. They want you buying new phones, they want to EOL phones, etc.

[canesfan625]

You still missed the point. The way you state it makes it seem like they will release major updates for ALL devices. That's the real question here. If they are then why are we even talking about this? Because carriers have to update all windows phones with major updates in perpetuity! See what I mean? They can still be the issue here.

MS wants to update them all, I'd hazard a guess that that's a safe assumption. But the carriers very likely do not. They want you buying new phones, they want to EOL phones, etc.

They are contracted to push updates to every phone except yours! It will probably be the same across all devices. They only have to push updates to the devices supported I would imagine. What carriers want is irrelevant. Microsoft promised two major updates for every device and carriers have to push them. The question about why we are talking about this is a good one. This all started because of some irrelevant interview at MWC. There isn't even anything to discuss until Apollo is actually announced. We haven't even arrived at Tango yet.

[Seketh]

You still missed the point. The way you state it makes it seem like they will release major updates for ALL devices. That's the real question here. If they are then why are we even talking about this? Because carriers have to update all windows phones with major updates in perpetuity! See what I mean? They can still be the issue here.

MS wants to update them all, I'd hazard a guess that that's a safe assumption. But the carriers very likely do not. They want you buying new phones, they want to EOL phones, etc.

Microsoft never said that Windows Phone updates were perpetual, of course they aren't.

What's being discussed in this thread is if the next major update, Apollo, is coming to ALL devices, and I posted yet another piece of information that confirms that the update is indeed coming to ALL Windows Phones.

And right now, it's way too soon to speculate if 1G and 2G devices will get post-Apollo updates, since we don't have any info about Apollo other than it's going to be based of Windows 8 kernel!

I could say that Windows Phone 8 devices might even get hotfixes the same way Windows 8 gets hotfixes, bypassing the carriers, but again, it's too soon to speculate, we don't really now anything except that Apollo is coming to ALL current Windows Phones.

[canesfan625]

Microsoft never said that Windows Phone updates were perpetual, of course they aren't.

What's being discussed in this thread is if the next major update, Apollo, is coming to ALL devices, and I posted yet another piece of information that confirms that the update is indeed coming to ALL Windows Phones.

And right now, it's way too soon to speculate if 1G and 2G devices will get post-Apollo updates, since we don't have any info about Apollo other than it's going to be based of Windows 8 kernel!

I could say that Windows Phone 8 devices might even get hotfixes the same way Windows 8 gets hotfixes, bypassing the carriers, but again, it's too soon to speculate, we don't really now anything except that Apollo is coming to ALL current Windows Phones.

This is not entirely accurate. Apollo won't have the windows 8 kernel. Its going to share code.

[anodynamic]

This is not entirely accurate. Apollo won't have the windows 8 kernel. Its going to share code.

Microsoft showed off the ARM version of Windows running on an old ASUS WinMo phone. If it runs on that it seems a bit redundant to work on a separate kernel for WP. I'd think most differences between Win8 and WP8 will be handled by more optimized device drivers for phones and the UI layer.

[Mitlov]

Updates come from the carriers and MS can't make promises for the carriers, I think that's why they can't say. I don't believe its a matter of can devices run it, it's a matter of will the carriers do it?

Even if Verizon didn't want an update for the HTC Trophy, just as a hypothetical, how could Verizon prevent Microsoft from releasing an update for it through Zune software?

[canesfan625]

Microsoft showed off the ARM version of Windows running on an old ASUS WinMo phone. If it runs on that it seems a bit redundant to work on a separate kernel for WP. I'd think most differences between Win8 and WP8 will be handled by more optimized device drivers for phones and the UI layer.

No it isn't. WP7 is based on the Win CE kernel. You cant tie a device based on windows CE to the desktop very well

[Big Supes]

If Apollo is coming to all Windows Phones, MS are either oblivious to the doubt and speculation or they're not bothered.... both don't make any sense.

[canesfan625]

If Apollo is coming to all Windows Phones, MS are either oblivious to the doubt and speculation or they're not bothered.... both don't make any sense.

Apollo is an unannounced product. Why is this so difficult for people to comprehend. They weren't even able to mention Apollo publicly until the info leak in Jan

[Big Supes]

But, everything 'pre-leaked info' is irrelevant. The cat was let out of the bag and the information was quickly confirmed. This was months ago...

MS should at least acknowledge how powerful a tool the internet is. If there is scepticism regarding the longevity of their current and next-to-be-released devices (Titan II/Lumia series), it will damage sales.

Cut the red tape already.

[canesfan625]

But, everything 'pre-leaked info' is irrelevant. The cat was let out of the bag and the information was quickly confirmed. This was months ago...

MS should at least acknowledge how powerful a tool the internet is. If there is scepticism regarding the longevity of their current and next-to-be-released devices (Titan II/Lumia series), it will damage sales.

Cut the red tape already.

The only info that was spoken to was the liked video for nokia.

[Big Supes]

^^ I'm sorry... I'm not following. :(

[anodynamic]

No it isn't. WP7 is based on the Win CE kernel. You cant tie a device based on windows CE to the desktop very well

I'm not sure exactly what you're on about when you talk about tying a Win CE device to the desktop. But I'm not talking about WP7. It has been mentioned that WP8 will retire CE for phones and replace it with the ARM build of the "regular" NT kernel which was developed to open up new possibilities for Windows 8 on mobile devices. If it works for Android and iOS it should be possible for MSFT as well to make something that works both on phones and tablets. And in that perspective it seems like a waste of resources to build two different ARM versions of the same kernel.

[eastbayrae]

It would be in their best interest to have it backwards compatible with at least the gen2 h/w.

[canesfan625]

I'm not sure exactly what you're on about when you talk about tying a Win CE device to the desktop. But I'm not talking about WP7. It has been mentioned that WP8 will retire CE for phones and replace it with the ARM build of the "regular" NT kernel which was developed to open up new possibilities for Windows 8 on mobile devices. If it works for Android and iOS it should be possible for MSFT as well to make something that works both on phones and tablets. And in that perspective it seems like a waste of resources to build two different ARM versions of the same kernel.

edit- I see what you are saying. The rumor is that supposedly windows 8 kernel is both x86 and arm to allow their program once and pretty much done app ecosystem. Its supported by the build conference dev getting his WP app to work in just minutes on windows 8. Since it will be a common platform its just UI changes

[anodynamic]

Windows on arm is not x86 compatible.

That's quite obvious. I fail to understand what x86 has to with this discussion, though. MSFT is taking NT the same way as Linux and Apple's XNU, which is to port one kernel to several architectures. And, since WP7 apps aren't native, compatibility is only a matter of porting runtimes and libraries to work with the new kernel.

[canesfan625]

That's quite obvious. I fail to understand what x86 has to with this discussion, though. MSFT is taking NT the same way as Linux and Apple's XNU, which is to port one kernel to several architectures. And, since WP7 apps aren't native, compatibility is only a matter of porting runtimes and libraries to work with the new kernel.

yeah I edited my post earlier. I was thinking about something entirely different. I was misunderstanding the compiled for arm comment. X86 is rellevent to the endgame of everything windows 8 though

[anodynamic]

yeah I edited my post earlier. I was thinking about something entirely different. I was misunderstanding the compiled for arm comment. X86 is rellevent to the endgame of everything windows 8 though

Ah, I see. I guess I have to add one thing, though, and that is that Metro apps from MS Store will run both on ARM and x86 builds of Windows 8, since they are non-native as well for compatibility. I think there may be a bit of confusion to come before people start to make distinctions like "media tablets" (ARM) and "tablet PCs" (x86) after Windows 8 rolls out on that market.

[N8ter]

NT has always run on multiple architectures. Since it was developed.

That's quite obvious. I fail to understand what x86 has to with this discussion, though. MSFT is taking NT the same way as Linux and Apple's XNU, which is to port one kernel to several architectures. And, since WP7 apps aren't native, compatibility is only a matter of porting runtimes and libraries to work with the new kernel.

Sent from my HD7 using Board Express

[anodynamic]

NT has always run on multiple architectures. Since it was developed.

Yeah. I guess the "extending it to current portable architectures" would have been more correct, since major non-x86 versions mostly have been for server type architectures. I think I remember reading somewhere that even if x86 was seen as the major market from the beginning they developed it for something else, to avoid using familiar x86-specific code, and then ported it from there.

Sometimes I wonder if I remember too much stuff... ;)

[Carl Bytes]

As I have posted before, Apollo upgradability is the reason why I bought my first wp7 phone after MWC. To be sure, I bought a 2nd Gen phone, HTC Radar. I think WP8 will be the same WP7 with full support and highly integrated to Windows 8 so there is no reason why current phones are not upgradable.

[kyderr]

Here's my take. Looking at the history here. All phones have short lives. The O/S can long outlive the hardware, but most people upgrade their phones every chance they get. Since Phone O/S is much more tied to hardware than desktop O/S hardware drives the replacement. Phone carriers need consumers to remain on their system, and they discount the hardware to keep the customer on contract. There is NO advantage from a business perspective to support older architecture. It is expensive. There is regression testing required and unlike desktops, there is not enough useable life life in a 12 month or 18 month old phone to make it worthwhile. I predict that there will be no upgrade for anything but the most recently released devices. Plus with Apollo featuring removable SD support, who would want a phone that does not have one.

I've been pretty active on other forums, but this is my first post here. Hi all.

[canesfan625]

Here's my take. Looking at the history here. All phones have short lives. The O/S can long outlive the hardware, but most people upgrade their phones every chance they get. Since Phone O/S is much more tied to hardware than desktop O/S hardware drives the replacement. Phone carriers need consumers to remain on their system, and they discount the hardware to keep the customer on contract. There is NO advantage from a business perspective to support older architecture. It is expensive. There is regression testing required and unlike desktops, there is not enough useable life life in a 12 month or 18 month old phone to make it worthwhile. I predict that there will be no upgrade for anything but the most recently released devices. Plus with Apollo featuring removable SD support, who would want a phone that does not have one.

I've been pretty active on other forums, but this is my first post here. Hi all.

Bit of a generalization don't you think? I don't know anyone personally who upgrades every chance they get. Not even those on Android not getting updates at all. Not "all" phones have short lives. This is just what we have come to expect by default because of Android devices being dropped after six months in most cases. If there is no advantage to support older architecture someone at Microsoft didn't get the memo before green lighting tango. Desktop comparisons do not make sense. The hardware issues are infinitely different. There will be plenty of life left in a Windows Phone at 12-18 months. This isn't Android. I've had my Arrive for longer than that and its still doing just fine.

by the way.. didnt the 3GS come out in 2009?

[mparker]

I think I remember reading somewhere that even if x86 was seen as the major market from the beginning they developed it for something else, to avoid using familiar x86-specific code, and then ported it from there.

It was originally written for the MIPS R3000, then ported to the X86 and DEC Alpha. It was later ported to the Itanium as well. So while it may not be as portable as Linux or OSX, moving it down to ARM was probably not that difficult; what was probably more difficult was finding and swapping out the various bits of the kernel that were inappropriate for SoC's (assumptions that memory was plentiful, optimizations that make sense when you have two dozen cores but not when you have four, features that were in there for SQL Server or COM, etc).

[N8ter]

Yeah. I guess the "extending it to current portable architectures" would have been more correct, since major non-x86 versions mostly have been for server type architectures. I think I remember reading somewhere that even if x86 was seen as the major market from the beginning they developed it for something else, to avoid using familiar x86-specific code, and then ported it from there.

Sometimes I wonder if I remember too much stuff... ;)

Both NT Workstation and Server ran on different architechtures, and of course they shared the same codebase. Only difference is that the average consumer didn't use NT, they used 3.1x and 9x Windows consumer-oriented OSes up until XP.

That's all really just trivial info, though.