Will Windows phone on 8.1 be upgraded to Windows 10?

[Ragazzochild]

Nokia did a great job at incorporating mass-market hardware into their devices. Nokia devices should be easy to upgrade for this reason. To Apple iOS versions means "look & feel" not features. Different phones have different features due to changing technology. For Android, they've gradually offloaded a lot of the important parts of Android to the market place, which makes the OS upgrade less relevant. For example, with Apple, in order to have the latest camera app also required the latest OS, but with Android, you can have a 2yr old OS, and still get the latest camera app.

The problem with WP8.x is that it's grossly outdated. Wrist devices that work with WP? How about any other accessories? It's so limited.

Simple question for WP devices... What does it do better than other devices? Not marginally better, but drastically. Apple Pay... They way they're pushing it, honestly, no one does it better right now. What does Windows have? Tiles?

 

[garama]

Guys single platform for all devices......pcs, tablets, mobiles etc. Win 10 will be for all devices across the board. Upgrading will be possible i believe.

 

[a5cent]

Guys single platform for all devices......pcs, tablets, mobiles etc. Win 10 will be for all devices across the board. Upgrading will be possible i believe.

A single WinRT API and WinRT runtime platform. Not a single OS!

 

[ShinraCorp]

A single WinRT API and WinRT runtime platform. Not a single OS!

Actually the way they presented it... it is a single OS, it is a UNIFIED OS. It'll probably run a check during installation.

Checklist

IF (CPU_x86 = 1)
{
INSTALL WINDOWS10_x86 (I wouldn't know how they install but let's just say that)
}
ELSE IF (CPU_ARM = 1)
{
INSTALL WINDOWS10_RT
}

Of course a lot of the resources it installs will be common for both CPU architectures. And Windows will optimize to the screen size of the device it is installing.

As we saw with Continuum, Windows adapts to the Start Menu or the Start Screen if there's a touch screen or not. It's exciting to say the least.

But ya basically it's a single OS just with a lot of variables mixed in.

 

[a5cent]

Actually the way they presented it... it is a single OS, it is a UNIFIED OS. It'll probably run a check during installation.

Checklist

IF (CPU_x86 = 1)
{
INSTALL WINDOWS10_x86 (I wouldn't know how they install but let's just say that)
}
ELSE IF (CPU_ARM = 1)
{
INSTALL WINDOWS10_RT
}

Of course a lot of the resources it installs will be common for both CPU architectures. And Windows will optimize to the screen size of the device it is installing.

As we saw with Continuum, Windows adapts to the Start Menu or the Start Screen if there's a touch screen or not. It's exciting to say the least.

But ya basically it's a single OS just with a lot of variables mixed in.

Nope. You're confusing Microsoft's statement of a "single platform" to mean a single OS. I agree that it's confusing. I suspect they are just trying to make it very clear that the same modern apps will run on all devices, and their marketing message is tailored to drive that point home. Technically it's incorrect however. We will have two OSes, that apparently will carry the same name.

The differences will go far beyond just being compiled for x86 and ARM architectures. One will have no desktop, no virtualization capabilities, no disk management capabilities, no integrated flash update, and also lack a million other things... not the same...

 

[Michael Alan Goff]

Nope. You're confusing Microsoft's statement of a "single platform" to mean a single OS. I agree that it's confusing. I suspect they are just trying to make it very clear that the same modern apps will run on all devices, and their marketing message is tailored to drive that point home. Technically it's incorrect however. We will have two OSes, that apparently will carry the same name.

The differences will go far beyond just being compiled for x86 and ARM architectures. One will have no desktop, no virtualization capabilities, no disk management capabilities, no integrated flash update, and also lack a million other things... not the same...

They said no integrated flash or are we speculating? I wasn't aware they really went into the differences so far.

 

[taymur]

Windows 10 is designed to run on a coffee Mug, as it is the solution for the internet of things.

My guess it will be able to run on our devices, but of course it needs modification.

 

[ShinraCorp]

They said no integrated flash or are we speculating? I wasn't aware they really went into the differences so far.

It's mostly pure speculation thus far since the only thing we got out of Windows 10 was that presentation and the preview for enterprise/IT Pro

 

[iamakii]

It will be. No doubt about it.

 

[Michael Alan Goff]

It's mostly pure speculation thus far since the only thing we got out of Windows 10 was that presentation and the preview for enterprise/IT Pro

I was just wondering, because the guy seemed really sure.

 

[a5cent]

They said no integrated flash or are we speculating? I wasn't aware they really went into the differences so far.

You picked out the one point (flash support) I am speculating on. I'm not speculating about any of the others. I just don't see where that admission gets you. It doesn't change anything about the larger point.

If you want to criticise or doubt the point I'm trying to make, the best way to do so would be by asking the question: "how similar must two OSes be, for them to correctly be called the same OS." I'm not aware of there being just one generally accepted definition.

Most definitions state that for two OSes to be considered "the same", they must at least be capable of running the same software. W10 and W10 (for mobile devices) can't do that.

I think most would agree with that partial definition, but for marketing reasons MS are deviating from it. IMHO that has not always furthered peoples understanding, particularly not for enthusiast/technically minded people like those who visit this site. I'd say it has confused more than helped, which is why I'm trying to clear up those misconceptions. Is that such a bad thing?

 

[a5cent]

It's mostly pure speculation thus far since the only thing we got out of Windows 10 was that presentation and the preview for enterprise/IT Pro

As a courtesy, you might want to wait for me to answer, as I'm sure you don't know which parts of everyone's posts are speculation and which aren't.

 

[Michael Alan Goff]

You picked out the one point (flash support) I am speculating on. I'm not speculating about any of the others. I just don't see where that admission gets you. It doesn't change anything about the larger point.

If you want to criticise or doubt the point I'm trying to make, the best way to do so would be by asking the question: "how similar must two OSes be, for them to correctly be called the same OS." I'm not aware of there being just one generally accepted definition.

Most definitions state that for two OSes to be considered "the same", they must at least be capable of running the same software. W10 and W10 (for mobile devices) can't do that.

I think most would agree with that partial definition, but for marketing reasons MS are deviating from it. IMHO that has not always furthered peoples understanding, particularly not for enthusiast/technically minded people like those who visit this site. I'd say it has confused more than helped, which is why I'm trying to clear up those misconceptions. Is that such a bad thing?

No, I simply want to ask questions. It's obvious that your "millions of things" is hyperbolic at best. Your speculation on everything here might, and probably will, be true. The mobile SKU might have none of those things. I doubt that it will have a desktop, for example. So, please, don't get snippy simply because I asked a question and thought you might have some proof of something that I don't know.

 

[a5cent]

It's obvious that your "millions of things" is hyperbolic at best.

Yes. Have you never made an obvious exaggeration to make a point? Exactly the fact that it should be obvious is what makes that okay. The point is that there are a LOT of differences, but obviously nobody can yet put an exact number to it. No need for passive aggression.

As for the rest, believe what you will. I already said what is speculation and what isn't.

 

[Michael Alan Goff]

Yes. Have you never made an obvious exaggeration to make a point? Exactly the fact that it should be obvious is what makes that okay. The point is that there are a LOT of differences, but obviously nobody can yet put an exact number to it. No need for passive aggression.

As for the rest, believe what you will. I already said what is speculation and what isn't.

Passive aggression? I'm asking questions and pointing out that you're wrong about some things. For other things, I'd like to see at least a single source. Because Microsoft has said very little about the future of Windows on ARM other than "it exists". Please stop deflecting by saying I'm "criticizing" and "being passive aggressive".

 

[a5cent]

Passive aggression? I'm asking questions and pointing out that you're wrong about some things. For other things, I'd like to see at least a single source. Because Microsoft has said very little about the future of Windows on ARM other than "it exists". Please stop deflecting by saying I'm "criticizing" and "being passive aggressive".

I don't think you've yet pointed out anything that I'm wrong about. Anyway, that my attempts to explain or defend myself are just met with further false accusations (inappropriate hyperbole, deflecting the conversation, or whatever), makes this seem rather pointless and boring, so lets move on.

In regard to W10 MS is very tight lipped, so I'm not aware of anything on the internet I could point you to. However, for those that attended the Q&A after the Windows 10 announcement, Belfiore did confirm that W10 for phones will not include the desktop. Unfortunately, that Q&A session was not publicized (at least not that I'm aware of). So. I can't give you a link. Does that automatically mean I'm speculating? I'm not asking you or anyone else to believe me. I'm just asking you and others not to make judgments about whether or not I'm speculating when you clearly aren't in a position to know.

 

[Michael Alan Goff]

I don't think you've yet pointed out anything that I'm wrong about. Anyway, that my attempts to explain or defend myself are just met with further false accusations (inappropriate hyperbole, deflecting the conversation, or whatever), makes this seem rather pointless and boring, so lets move on.

In regard to W10 MS is very tight lipped, so I'm not aware of anything on the internet I could point you to. However, for those that attended the Q&A after the Windows 10 announcement, Belfiore did confirm that W10 for phones will not include the desktop. Unfortunately, that Q&A session was not publicized (at least not that I'm aware of). So. I can't give you a link. Does that automatically mean I'm speculating? I'm not asking you or anyone else to believe me. I'm just asking you and others not to make judgments about whether or not I'm speculating when you clearly aren't in a position to know.

I'm not going to just take your word' for it without proof. I even agreed that it probably wouldn't have a desktop, but based on what I heard from other sources. You haven't explained a single thing about what you've said. The instant I questioned you about flash, with the hopes of getting clarification, you then get defensive. I then point out you being hyperbolic, and you get defensive again. Now you're continuing to be defensive. Your only point is to say that you had access to something that I can neither confirm or deny.

And I'm just supposed to accept what you're saying?

And, for the record, I never said you were wrong about anything. I asked if you were right, then said you were speculating. Then, like I said, you got defensive. I'm not attacking you, getting passive aggressive, or anything negative like that. I'm saying that there has been nothing in the leaks to suggest a lot of what you're portraying as fact.


speculation



[ ˌspekyəˈlāSHən ]


noun

noun: speculation ? plural noun: speculations

1.the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence

As there is no firm evidence, you're speculating. Whether you want to admit it or not, that is the definition.

 

[a5cent]

And I'm just supposed to accept what you're saying?

No, you're not expected to blindly accept anything, and I clearly stated that in the post directly above yours. Why even ask? What I'm actually objecting to is also written out plainly, so I won't repeat it again.

There is very little official information out there, but if you accept without having heard it for yourself Belfiore's confirmation that W104M (W10 for mobile devices) won't support the desktop or desktop software, then that by itself is already enough to make my point.

My point, again, is that W10 and W104M are not the same OS, because they can't run the same software. IMHO lacking (amongst other things) the desktop (and yes, the million things that go along with that) means it's closer to the truth to think of them as two separate OSes, with some shared components. That's the whole point I've been trying to make, and I would be interested to learn if other people share that view, or if people think it's fair/useful to give them the same name despite such differences.

 

[DoctorSaline]

I would be interested to learn if other people share that view, or if people think it's fair/useful to give them the same name despite such differences.

I used to think that it is not such a good idea but now I've another perspective. I thought it'd confuse people but now tbh, it is not like people were lining to buy windows phones thinking they will be able to run desktop software(though it may or may not have created problems with RT tablets). I think, for now it may not affect them at all, come to think of it, windows phone isn't a most popular platform right now. But, it DOES make sense for MS to brand everything as Windows if they foresee a future in which desktop software will be recompiled as WinRT aka Modern aka Windows Store apps as universal apps for all of MS' ecosystem(phones, tablets, PCs, XBox, Smartwatches, IoT etc). Ofcourse, Windows 10 is just the beginning. It will be interesting to see how MS will proceed from that. Obviously, the most logical next step in my eyes will be to merge Win32 and WinRT to make it easy for legacy software developers to recompile their software as Windows store apps and to bring as much power to WinRT as existing Win32 without compromising on the advantages of WinRT.

To OP, WP8.1 runs fine on S4 Plus devices so I don't see any reason for these devices to not be upgradeable to Windows 10 unless ofcourse they may want to make 1st Gen WP8 device owners to upgrade to Windows 10 phones.

 

[Michael Alan Goff]

No, you're not expected to blindly accept anything, and I clearly stated that in the post directly above yours. Why even ask? What I'm actually objecting to is also written out plainly, so I won't repeat it again.

There is very little official information out there, but if you accept without having heard it for yourself Belfiore's confirmation that W104M (W10 for mobile devices) won't support the desktop or desktop software, then that by itself is already enough to make my point.

My point, again, is that W10 and W104M are not the same OS, because they can't run the same software. IMHO lacking (amongst other things) the desktop (and yes, the million things that go along with that) means it's closer to the truth to think of them as two separate OSes, with some shared components. That's the whole point I've been trying to make, and I would be interested to learn if other people share that view, or if people think it's fair/useful to give them the same name despite such differences.

Bold: I accept information from sources that have a proven track record. MJF is a known good source.
Italics: They're trying to make a unified store. So, theoretically, they're going to make it to where the store apps that are on one are pretty much the same as the other, aside from maybe some UI considerations.

The lack of a desktop doesn't make it a different OS. That would mean the interface makes the OS. No, the interface is just one part of an OS.