Is the 950 and 950XL running windows 10?

[taymur]

Ok, first of all, let me get this out there, I think Microsoft told reviewers not to say the word windows 10 mobile, because its weird that all of them are saying that the 950 is running windows 10.

That said, is the 950 and the 950 XL really running something different from the old generation, like the 930 and the 1520?

Finally, how come 950 has USB OTG, and the 930 does not? i really do not think its a hardware thing, because my old Nokia n8 had USB OTG, with mouse and keyboard support.

 

[tangledW]

Whaaaaaaat?

 

[ashram]

Ok, first of all, let me get this out there, I think Microsoft told reviewers not to say the word windows 10 mobile, because its weird that all of them are saying that the 950 is running windows 10.

Well, it is Windows 10, the same way the xbox, PC and iot all have Windows 10. It would feel weird to have to say Windows 10 mobile over and over again. we all know what it is, so it's not that big of a deal.

That said, is the 950 and the 950 XL really running something different from the old generation, like the 930 and the 1520?

The build the 950's are running are just tweaked for their specific hardware. Not really that different with the exception of the divers and new features supported (Windows Hello, Continuum, etc)

Finally, how come 950 has USB OTG, and the 930 does not? i really do not think its a hardware thing, because my old Nokia n8 had USB OTG, with mouse and keyboard support.

OTG has to be enabled in hardware AND software. doesn't matter if another phone had it or not.Does the 930 have everything that is needed? who knows! We can speculate all day and still, no clue.

Granted, this topic seems more specific to Windows 10 MOBILE over the 950 specifically....

 

[taymur]

I mean, the reviews got me confused, if its windows 10 mobile, then they have to say that, and not say windows 10.

when i read windows 10, and the reviewer starts showing continuum, as an average customer i will start thinking that this will work as a PC.


setting people to the same disappointment that happened with RT.

 

[a5cent]

The build the 950's are running are just tweaked for their specific hardware. Not really that different with the exception of the divers and new features supported (Windows Hello, Continuum, etc)....

The question here is: "different from what?"

If you are just comparing between WM/WP devices, that statement is correct. If you are comparing W10M to W10, which is what the OP is asking, then that statement is incorrect. They are definitely not the same.

W10 and W10M share some common components, so certain parts are identical. But they are no more "the same" than a truck and a car are the same. Such vehicles may share some components, like the seat and the steering wheel, but that doesn't make them the same either.

That MS asked sites to refer to W10M as Windows 10 (omitting Mobile), is not that far fetched. I do think MS would prefer the average consumer to think of it that way, as it's the easiest way to drive home their marketing messages, despite it being technically false.

 

[wplust]

It is extremely misleading to call the phone operating stem Windows 10 as the phone software does not have the desktop capability, and cannot run any desktop programs. Maybe someday everything will be an app, but that day is not here.

 

[Skyway]

Why would you expect a phone to run the full desktop version of an os? I though it was fairly obvious it won't since they use different architecture for the processors and it's a phone, not a computer. However, this is essentially what MS wants to do in the future. One OS across all devices, but we are pretty far from that yet.

That would be like buying a truck with a v8 engine and then expecting it to perform the same as the sports car with a v8 from the same manufacture. They may both use the same engine block, but the rest of the components and the body are different, resulting in different performances.

 

[Allen Rhodes]

It's. Just. Windows. 10. Not that difficult. People can call it "mobile", but it's W10.

 

[a5cent]

It's. Just. Windows. 10. Not that difficult. People can call it "mobile", but it's W10.

No, it's really not. It's missing almost all Win32 related dlls for example.

 

[taymur]

Why would you expect a phone to run the full desktop version of an os? I though it was fairly obvious it won't since they use different architecture for the processors and it's a phone, not a computer. However, this is essentially what MS wants to do in the future. One OS across all devices, but we are pretty far from that yet.

That would be like buying a truck with a v8 engine and then expecting it to perform the same as the sports car with a v8 from the same manufacture. They may both use the same engine block, but the rest of the components and the body are different, resulting in different performances.

I know that most of the people on this website wont expect it to run desktop version programs.

but when The Verge says that the 950 runs windows 10, and goes around showing how it works as a computer with the dock, screen, keyboard and mouse.... the average person would think its a computer with windows 10 with a phone form factor.

Windows Central said that the 950 runs windows 10 in their USB OTG video.

I think this play on words is confusing for people who are not used to this platform.

Microsoft just recreated the Windows and windows RT dilemma again.

 

[a5cent]

Why would you expect a phone to run the full desktop version of an os? I though it was fairly obvious it won't since they use different architecture for the processors and it's a phone, not a computer. However, this is essentially what MS wants to do in the future.

That's naturally what people expect, when you give something the same name. They expect things with the same name to be the same thing. Windows RT was already too similar, so that name also raised false expectations. Many assumed RT to be some new edition of Windows, analog to Home or Pro, both of which have always run desktop software... RT couldn't.

The different CPU architectures aren't an obvious indicator either, because universal apps (or any other pure .net application) DO run on both ARM and x86. If a lot of software runs on any CPU (even MS Office ran on ARM), it will confound many why a lot of other desktop software would not.

My point is that while it's technically ridiculous to expect desktop software to run on W10M, people need quite a bit of information to understand why. Without that information, that false expectation doesn't seem so unreasonable. Just calling it W10 then enforces such false notions.

I'd also argue that MS does NOT (ever) intend to completely converge both OSes and end up with only one! As long as Windows must compete with low-end Android phones and tablets, MS needs a stripped down version of Windows that doesn't have the same hardware requirements as full blown Windows. Compared to W10, W10M runs on devices with half the RAM, 1/10th the storage, and far less power. It's not that you can't run full Windows on a smartphone sized device. It's that you can't do it at a price that competes with Android.

As long as MS must compete with lowest-end Android, W10 and W10M will remain separate and different products that share some identical components.

 

[taymur]

Agreed, what is happening is setting up people for disappointment. just like what happened with RT.

Even Apple is facing the same thing now with their iPad "Pro".

 

[Pete]

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. The fact that it was actually a really good tablet OS just didn't occur to anyone.

Windows 10 Mobile is very different. The main technology journalists know what the situation is and no one has complained that it doesn't run native Windows programs so I don't know where your confusion is coming from here.

 

[a5cent]

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. The fact that it was actually a really good tablet OS just didn't occur to anyone.

Windows 10 Mobile is very different. The main technology journalists know what the situation is and no one has complained that it doesn't run native Windows programs so I don't know where your confusion is coming from here.

The confusion comes from many journalists just calling it Windows 10. With that name comes expectations... false expectations... just as with Windows RT.

MS also once insisted on calling it just Windows 10. During that time we also had a lot of people here asking if, or how well, it would run desktop software on phones.

This thread shows that even some people on WCentral are still confused about what W10M is and is not.

 

[Pete]

The confusion comes from many journalists just calling it Windows 10. With that name comes expectations... false expectations... just as with Windows RT.

Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places, but I've not read any tech blog/review express confusion as to why the phone can't run traditional windows programs.

 

[a5cent]

Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places, but I've not read any tech blog/review express confusion as to why the phone can't run traditional windows programs.

True. But it will raise false expectations regardless. Expectations that won't be met.

Why not just insist on reviewers naming the OS as it should be, and make it more clear this is not and never will be just W10?

 

[tgp]

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. The fact that it was actually a really good tablet OS just didn't occur to anyone.

Why are things like this always "someone else's" fault? RT was killed by its own shortcomings. Sure, it was a good tablet OS. It also relied on apps, which were virtually nonexistent. Because of this, its usefulness had a quite narrow scope.

 

[a5cent]

Why are things like this always "someone else's" fault? RT was killed by its own shortcomings. Sure, it was a good tablet OS. It also relied on apps, which were virtually nonexistent. Because of this, its usefulness had a quite narrow scope.

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.

 

[tgp]

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.

If Microsoft would have accurately communicated what it really was, few would have bought it anyway. It would have failed anyway. In the end, it was Microsoft's fault for producing a tablet that was suitable for a few users who needed something for a limited productivity scenario, and little else.

Sure, if you and a bunch of friends want to fly around a table clicking the kickstands, or if you're a baseball scout who needs to video conference with your superior while browsing the web, get a Surface RT. Other than that, look for something else like a tablet with full Windows.

 

[a5cent]

If Microsoft would have accurately communicated what it really was, few would have bought it anyway. It would have failed anyway. In the end, it was Microsoft's fault for producing a tablet that was suitable for a few users who needed something for a limited productivity scenario, and little else.

Sure, if you and a bunch of friends want to fly around a table clicking the kickstands, or if you're a baseball scout who needs to video conference with your superior while browsing the web, get a Surface RT. Other than that, look for something else like a tablet with full Windows.

Maybe. It's hard to say what would have been.

I think most consumers are generally swayed more by hype than anything else, and the media does notably contribute to that. I think that's far more important than how good a product actually is, or isn't.

If that affects consumers, it also affects developers, and so is set in motion a positive cycle...

I agree RT was far from perfect, and definitely had its faults, but so does every other fledgling product. I don't agree that it was doomed to fail from the outset.

Anyway, the point being made here is that MS should avoid the errors made in the past and avoid suggesting, in every possible way, that a product is something it isn't.