According to Thurrott on WP 8.1, this is it.

[Jazmac]

Bingo, sorry. I'm still a little confused why you were lugubrious about 8.1 being more or less final and why you were thinking MS might want to pull the plug. However you responded to another poster who apparently had not upgraded to 8.1 and suggested that they talk to you when they had. ...

Might not be a good idea to assume fact not yet in evidence. You would be better served keeping to the facts you can understand and leave Facebook analysis on Facebook. WPCentral is a tech forum. I have no FEELINGS as it relates to tech. Its just tech.

So if you have time, what is your experience?

Still more Facebook renderings and again, its not up for discussion. Ask Laura K. of her experience. She is a good bit more interesting and hella hotter than me. Guaranteed!

 

[A895]

walk away, no... Restart? Quite likely... Especially given their track record.

is it so difficult for you to see their track record and their 2% market share and wonder why people are skeptical of their future in the mobile space?

I would agree with you. I think they may rethink some ways they are approaching the smartphone market.

Posted via Windows Phone Central App

 

[b23h]

Might not be a good idea to assume fact not yet in evidence. You would be better served keeping to the facts you can understand and leave Facebook analysis on Facebook. WPCentral is a tech forum. I have no FEELINGS as it relates to tech. Its just tech.


Still more Facebook renderings and again, its not up for discussion. Ask Laura K. of her experience. She is a good bit more interesting and hella hotter than me. Guaranteed!

That's an interesting response.
1. You use the term lugubrious and then state you have no feelings about tech.
2. In this thread you say to someone, "Don't misunderstand. I'm not bored with it. Just wait until you get it, then we'll talk" , but don't want to discuss your conclusions.
3. I did take the time to look at some of your older posts shortly after I posted and I expect my conclusion is a pretty accurate summation.

"Facebook renderings" seems like a potentially insulting characterization. No would have worked as well without all the clear contradictions and weird characterizations. You have successfully made an impact though.

I am curious as to what the "facts you can understand" are and the analysis I'm missing, but it's a rhetorical question. No doubt I would not understand your exposition.

 

[BobLobIaw]

walk away, no... Restart? Quite likely... Especially given their track record.

is it so difficult for you to see their track record and their 2% market share and wonder why people are skeptical of their future in the mobile space?

The 4% market share for Windows Phone is small enough that it doesn't need to be understated for emphasis. All you accomplish by doing so is undermining your own credibility.

 

[Editguy1900]

I don't think OEMs do have confidence either. Especially HP with all the chromebooks they are pushing out as well as 2 Android powered laptops in the past year. Yes other OEMs are doing the same but HP seems to be doing it at a faster rate.


Sent from my iPad Air using Tapatalk

HP is in such deep trouble that they're just throwing stuff at the wall to see what will stick.

 

[hagjohn]

I'm running 8.1 on my 1020 and it's just as fast, if not a little faster, than 8 was. It's fluid (things open as soon as I click on them) in virtually everything, other than music apps, which I do agree just plain suck but that's an app issue, not OS/Hardware speed issue.

 

[Studio384]

I imagine the next update will be Fall of this year but I don't expect any groundbreaking releases until Windows Phone 9 in Spring of 2015.

Windows Phone 8.1 Update 1 is expected to be finished next month, actualy.

 

[Studio384]

Yeah I don't understand what Microsoft was thinking with RT because it is useless when there are full Windows 8 tablets as low as $100. I don't think any manufacturer besides Microsoft and Nokia have a RT tablet at that. It shows OEMs don't have confidence in it. On the other hand part of me believes Microsoft put out Windows Phone to test the smartphone market waters. I think they are going to increase efforts there next year. But hopefully for them it won't be too late.

Sent from my XT907 using Mobile Nations mobile app

Microsoft introduced Windows RT to shake Intel. Their hardware was a no-go on tablets back in 2011. Intel made a lot of improvement because Microsoft had now software that ran on competitors' hardware. Intel HAD to fix it.

 

[Pieter Wolff]

I just been looking at the list of Lumia phones available and i see no reason to upgrade either, there is no killer must have feature on high end phones, the bigger camera is nice but a killer feature no, i think my phone is the sweet spot of Lumias, perfect size 4.3", great battery life, no issues with 8.1, upgradeable memory with SD space and with thanks to the Os its snappy and never lags ... if we stay at 8.?? forever, i`m happy

Same here. Sounds like you own a L720 to me. No need to change as I'm quite happy with all present features. Also still at 8.

 

[Nickkk101]

That's an interesting response.
1. You use the term lugubrious and then state you have no feelings about tech.
2. In this thread you say to someone, "Don't misunderstand. I'm not bored with it. Just wait until you get it, then we'll talk" , but don't want to discuss your conclusions.
3. I did take the time to look at some of your older posts shortly after I posted and I expect my conclusion is a pretty accurate summation.

"Facebook renderings" seems like a potentially insulting characterization. No would have worked as well without all the clear contradictions and weird characterizations. You have successfully made an impact though.

I am curious as to what the "facts you can understand" are and the analysis I'm missing, but it's a rhetorical question. No doubt I would not understand your exposition.

​I have to say, 10/10 on an eloquent answer there. Its nice to read well thought out points and answers. Sounds like you wont get an answer though, which is a shame because I always enjoy reading people's wider views on the state of an OS or ecosystem, particularly MS's. I think there's good discussions to be had (yes, still) without it being characterised as 'facebook ramblings' or whatever what is supposed to mean...! I sure as hell wouldn't debate the finer points of Windows Phone on Facebook, unless i wanted to hemorrhage friends and probably family members on there...actually, come to think of it....

 

[A895]

Microsoft introduced Windows RT to shake Intel. Their hardware was a no-go on tablets back in 2011. Intel made a lot of improvement because Microsoft had now software that ran on competitors' hardware. Intel HAD to fix it.

Source?

Posted via Windows Phone Central App

 

[MrWhiteman]

Those are old Android misconceptions.

Sent from my XT907 using Mobile Nations mobile app

My sister has a Galaxy S2 and it's total junk

 

[Jas00555]

Source?

Posted via Windows Phone Central App

Common sense and looking at Intel's line-up would be the only source you would need. Intel had no good, cheap, long-lasting battery life chips until Bay trail and Clover trail. Microsoft had to go with ARM for that. Now, why they picked Nvidia over Qualcomm, I'll never know.

 

[mparker]

Microsoft introduced Windows RT to shake Intel. Their hardware was a no-go on tablets back in 2011. Intel made a lot of improvement because Microsoft had now software that ran on competitors' hardware. Intel HAD to fix it.

Common sense and looking at Intel's line-up would be the only source you would need. Intel had no good, cheap, long-lasting battery life chips until Bay trail and Clover trail. Microsoft had to go with ARM for that. Now, why they picked Nvidia over Qualcomm, I'll never know.

I'm not so sure about that. Microsoft certainly knew about the Bay Trail, Clover Trail, as well as the outlines of Haswell, and probably Broadwell when it made the decision to support ARM. Intel's roadmaps go out nearly a decade (though they obviously get more speculative the farther out you go) because Intel not only has to design and manufacture the CPUs, they have to build the fab lines that will be used to manufacture the CPUs, and the supporting chips for those CPU's, and the motherboards for those chips. I think the decision to add ARM support was made because Windows NT needed it. It's prosaic, and doesn't make a good story, but I think it has the virtue of being supported by history.

Microsoft has always made sure that Windows NT was supported on at least two different CPU's. One of them has always been x86, but there has always been another CPU that was supported, all the way back to the dawn of NT. Windows NT was originally developed on the MIPS R3000 CPU (used by Silicon Graphics) and then ported to Intel - just to make absolutely sure that no x86-isms infected the codebase. When MIPS declined in importance, the next release supported the DEC Alpha machines. When DEC went under, the very next release ran on Intel Itanium machines. Itanium flopped in the marketplace, but Microsoft kept supporting it with NT until Windows 8, when Itanium support was dropped. And lo and behold, Windows 8 supports the ARM CPU. ARM is the only other CPU architecture that is important at the moment, and the logical choice for the "other" CPU architecture. Maybe in another 5 years they'll drop ARM and add support for the Mill or something.

Apple does the same thing BTW. The NeXTStep OS ran on PPC, x86, HP Prism, and MC86k. After they were acquired/took over Apple, all consumers ever saw was the PowerPC version but internally Apple made sure it still ran on x86 (which was the only other CPU that was still around). So their switch to x86 wasn't terribly surprising if you knew the history of the OS, nor the port of the kernel to ARM for the iPod/iPhone/iPad lines.

 

[A895]

My sister has a Galaxy S2 and it's total junk

You mean an almost 3 year old phone is junk? Do tell....

 

[A895]

Common sense and looking at Intel's line-up would be the only source you would need. Intel had no good, cheap, long-lasting battery life chips until Bay trail and Clover trail. Microsoft had to go with ARM for that. Now, why they picked Nvidia over Qualcomm, I'll never know.

I never heard of this until now. So where does that leave RT? Just a dead OS, made just for a statement?

 

[Jas00555]

I never heard of this until now. So where does that leave RT? Just a dead OS, made just for a statement?

RT as it is right now, yes, it dead. It will be replaced by a scaled up Windows Phone OS, like how Apple does iOS and Google does Android. Not necessarily for a statement, but because they had to. They couldn't wait for Bay trail to come out. Hell, they were late enough to tablets as it was.

 

[Jas00555]

I'm not so sure about that. Microsoft certainly knew about the Bay Trail, Clover Trail, as well as the outlines of Haswell, and probably Broadwell when it made the decision to support ARM. Intel's roadmaps go out nearly a decade (though they obviously get more speculative the farther out you go) because Intel not only has to design and manufacture the CPUs, they have to build the fab lines that will be used to manufacture the CPUs, and the supporting chips for those CPU's, and the motherboards for those chips. I think the decision to add ARM support was made because Windows NT needed it. It's prosaic, and doesn't make a good story, but I think it has the virtue of being supported by history.

Microsoft has always made sure that Windows NT was supported on at least two different CPU's. One of them has always been x86, but there has always been another CPU that was supported, all the way back to the dawn of NT. Windows NT was originally developed on the MIPS R3000 CPU (used by Silicon Graphics) and then ported to Intel - just to make absolutely sure that no x86-isms infected the codebase. When MIPS declined in importance, the next release supported the DEC Alpha machines. When DEC went under, the very next release ran on Intel Itanium machines. Itanium flopped in the marketplace, but Microsoft kept supporting it with NT until Windows 8, when Itanium support was dropped. And lo and behold, Windows 8 supports the ARM CPU. ARM is the only other CPU architecture that is important at the moment, and the logical choice for the "other" CPU architecture. Maybe in another 5 years they'll drop ARM and add support for the Mill or something.

Apple does the same thing BTW. The NeXTStep OS ran on PPC, x86, HP Prism, and MC86k. After they were acquired/took over Apple, all consumers ever saw was the PowerPC version but internally Apple made sure it still ran on x86 (which was the only other CPU that was still around). So their switch to x86 wasn't terribly surprising if you knew the history of the OS, nor the port of the kernel to ARM for the iPod/iPhone/iPad lines.

They already ported NT to ARM for Windows Phone. I don't see any reason why they need 2 different OSes running ARM. I'd much sooner believe that they were forced to by Intel because even if they knew the precise second when Bay Trail would be available, they couldn't wait a year for it to come out.

 

[WillysJeepMan]

Were all of those Windows Mobile versions completely incompatible with each other? If not, then that would only be once every 7 years. I mean, unless you're getting mad at Apple because they go from iOS 1 to 2 to 3 etc...

Completely incompatible? Depends upon your definition of "completely". Yes, some were. (more frequent than every 7 years, more like every 4 years)

My point has been that Microsoft has been in this mobile OS game far longer than Google and Apple and yet 14 years later they're sitting at 2% marketshare. During that time that have restarted/rebooted/regrouped at least 2 times. That's nothing to brag about. Some, give Microsoft a pass for coming so far in such a short time as if they only started with WP7. I don't expect the Microsoft-faithful to understand that.

 

[DaT Franchise]

Completely incompatible? Depends upon your definition of "completely". Yes, some were. (more frequent than every 7 years, more like every 4 years)

My point has been that Microsoft has been in this mobile OS game far longer than Google and Apple and yet 14 years later they're sitting at 2% marketshare. During that time that have restarted/rebooted/regrouped at least 2 times. That's nothing to brag about. Some, give Microsoft a pass for coming so far in such a short time as if they only started with WP7. I don't expect the Microsoft-faithful to understand that.

Dont forget killed RT in less then 3 years. As far a coming a long way in such a short time, 14 years in the mobile game and still way behind in core features, yes the os is smooth stable and fast but that doesn't sell products, add to that developers dont want to touch the non x86 side of Microsoft for exactly the reasons you state. Like I've said before WP is a pet project.