Official Redstone 1 for Mobile - another cut off?

[a5cent]

too soon, but for RS2 that's a resounding yes, I'm still wondering how the 435 with a slower dual core than the old S4 made it into w10m, if anything you can expect the 930-1520 to make it to RS2, nothing else

The reason you're still wondering is because you (and some others here) assume being cut off is somehow related to hardware capabilities, i.e. primarily raw performance. It's really not! It's about economics, or more precisely, the benefits and costs of supporting particular devices vs. not supporting them. That's all.
Your assumptions about the 930 and 1520 are wrong for the same reasons.

 

[Florin_Anghel]

The reason you're still wondering is because you (and some others here) assume being cut off is somehow related to hardware capabilities, i.e. primarily raw performance. It's really not! It's about economics, or more precisely, the benefits and costs of supporting particular devices vs. not supporting them. That's all.
Your assumptions about the 930 and 1520 are wrong for the same reasons.

True, but they should do this effort since there aren't too much alternative out there for the 930 or 1520, don't tell me about the 950 and the 950 XL, the build quality on those 2 devices is pure crap. They bend, they squeak when they are in hand..only the screen is better.
That's why I am betting they will support the 930 at least, if they don't, me and a lot others will find themselves jumping ship, there is no device out there that meets our needs.
HP Elite X3 I understand it will be sold first to business, not to customer, if you want to buy it you have to do it via their website so very limited release.
Acer Jade Primo is somehow a candidate, but fails in battery specs.

 

[broar94]

^ also based on feedback from insider builds.

 

[a5cent]

True, but they should do this effort since there aren't too much alternative out there for the 930 or 1520.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying MS shouldn't make the effort. I'm just saying that the whole notion of current hardware being unable to adequately run W10M is BS.

W10M does absolutely nothing that would technically prevent it from running just fine on L520s and L720s. For some reason MS just doesn't consider that capability worth the required investment.

^ also based on feedback from insider builds.

That's barely more than an excuse.

W10M is software. MS can make it run perfectly on any x20 generation hardware they want it to run on. If W10M doesn't run sufficiently "well" on some devices (whatever that means), then MS has two choices:

• keep investing in and improving the software so it eventually gains the ability to run sufficiently well on the desired platforms
• decide the required investment isn't worth the potential gain and bail

MS chose the second option and needed some way of explaining it. For some reason their excuse worked very well, likely because it achieved the goal of shifting the "blame" away from themselves. That's the only thing that explanation/excuse has going for it.

 

[Maurizio Troso]

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying they shouldn't make the effort. I'm just saying that the whole notion of current hardware being unable to adequately run W10M is BS. The opposite is closer to the truth, namely that the OS is neither flexible nor lean enough to run on existing hardware, which it definitely could be.



That's barely more than an excuse.

W10M is software. MS can make it run on anything they want it to run on. If W10M doesn't run sufficiently "well" on some devices (whatever that means), then MS has two choices:

a) keep investing and improving in the software to eventually gain the capability to run sufficiently well.
b) decide the required investment isn't worth the potential gain

MS chose option "b" and needed some way of explaining it. For some reason their excuse worked very well, likely because it achieved the goal of shifting the "blame" away from themselves. That's the only thing that explanation/excuse has going for it.

There's the c) option: invest in a little add-on for a light version, e.g. without any Aero animation, fadings, popups, or a graphic toggle for them

 

[a5cent]

There's the c) option: invest in a little add-on for a light version, e.g. without any Aero animation, fadings, popups, or a graphic toggle for them

I consider that part of option "a". It's just one of a myriad ways of achieving that goal, assuming that's even the issue, which I'm not convinced it is. I suspect the real issues are a lot lower down in the software stack (re-using W10's memory management, memory requirements exploding due to somewhat gluttonous UWP apps running in W10's CLR, stuff like that).

 

[a5cent]

Anyway, I don't think we can predict when the next group of devices will reach the point when they are no longer updated. I'm not aware of any information floating around that would allow us to make such predictions.

If it really was about hardware requirements and the insider-experience, such predictions would be a lot easier to make.

 

[dlalonde]

The reason you're still wondering is because you (and some others here) assume being cut off is somehow related to hardware capabilities, i.e. primarily raw performance. It's really not! It's about economics, or more precisely, the benefits and costs of supporting particular devices vs. not supporting them. That's all.
Your assumptions about the 930 and 1520 are wrong for the same reasons.

I definitely agree! It's all about money. The same goes for Google not putting its apps on Windows. It's just not a petty war, it's about money and the benifit they'd gain by making apps vs not making apps.

But, MS has to remember that a reputation does have financial repercussions. Saying that all WP8.1 devices will be updated and then deciding otherwise, that's just cheap. If they tell us that all current devices running W10M will have Redstone, why believe them? And that can stop people from buying devices still being sold like the 640XL. If you buy a phone but you're not even sure it's going to be supported in the next 6 months, why bother. That gives munitions to Apple and middle/high end Android devices. I'm sure the whole WP7 to WP8 and WP8 to 8.1 debacles didn't help in anyway. And not just because it looks like they're lying to users but also because they look like they don't know what their own products.

 

[EspHack]

The reason you're still wondering is because you (and some others here) assume being cut off is somehow related to hardware capabilities, i.e. primarily raw performance. It's really not! It's about economics, or more precisely, the benefits and costs of supporting particular devices vs. not supporting them. That's all.
Your assumptions about the 930 and 1520 are wrong for the same reasons.

partially true, why? because I don't see Microsoft "supporting" any 5-8 year old pc either, they just give people the choice, now that they plan to let 3rd parties build the bulk of w10m devices like they do with pc, maybe its time they take the same approach towards mobile

 

[xandros9]

These updates are all about money, but we should also see that Microsoft is ditching an entire generation of phones. Phones that aren't even that old.

Apple somehow finds the goodwill to update the iPhone 5s from 2013, the iPhone 5 from 2012.
(I won't bring up the Icon or iPhone 4s)

The 1020? Nope. Under the bus.
The 525? December 2013 launch date? Nope doesn't matter.

They're already saving money by soft-giving up on mobile, might as well throw away more goodwill too I suppose, especially after the OneDrive resizing.

I suppose one could argue the 36 month support window. But Windows Phone 8.1 hardly got support. We'd get patches and small features as everyone else pushed forward somehow.

 

[a5cent]

partially true, why? because I don't see Microsoft "supporting" any 5-8 year old pc either, they just give people the choice, now that they plan to let 3rd parties build the bulk of w10m devices like they do with pc, maybe its time they take the same approach towards mobile

I don't understand what you're saying here. What choice are you referring to?

It's hard to talk about support when it comes to PCs. There's stuff like the Surface 2 which MS gave up on (suspended support for) shortly after its release. However, I also know of a few whitebox PC's that are a decade old but still run W10 just fine and receive the same W10 updates a person with a brand new system does.

In the Linux/Windows world, support is tied to the OS rather than to any specific hardware, so as long as drivers exist for your OS/hardware combinations, you'll have access to the latest OS updates. With the exception of the chipset, Windows doesn't directly support any hardware at all (neither old or new). That's a completely different model that just isn't comparable to smartphones.

 

[EspHack]

That's a completely different model that just isn't comparable to smartphones.

if that's what you THINK, then we can finish the argument right there

what I meant by options is that Microsoft doesn't have a whitelist for which pc model gets w10 or not, just the opposite, they almost forcefully give you updates

 

[a5cent]

You imply that I THINK incorrectly, and then say the exact same thing I did (the ways W10 and W10M are updated are very different)... still have no idea what you're trying to say. Sorry.