Why is Windows 10 Mobile not as smooth and fast as WP 8.1?

[EspHack]

if I remember correctly the gpu is the biggest difference in s4 vs sd400, since a good gpu is hardly justifiable on cost-effective solutions they tend to go with whatever works, the 305 is probably a rebranded 205 clocked way higher, thing is they rely on other things, the S4 having dual channel memory would dramatically boost the 225 since they use shared ram, and, again, the better single threaded performance of the s4 cores is a sure win for gaming

if im not mistaken, gameplay videos of asphalt 8 back in 8.1 days show the 305 phones struggling to keep playable framerates even with lower resolutions while the 225 phones handle it just fine

 

[StarLord0890]

Shouldn't have upgraded lol

 

[Myrkur]

I have the Windows 10, Redstone 1 release on my Lumia 930 and it seems to work perfectly, smooth, no restarts and the battery life has become weirdly awesome ... I have like 40% at the end of the day now.

Pretty much the same here. There are some funny issues (most of them related to camera in my case), but overall experience is pretty good.

 

[Vasil Dechkov]

Shouldn't have upgraded lol

Why? I really like the experience of Windows 10 Mobile.

You can always downgrade though.

Sent from mTalk on a 535.

 

[olympija]

My 8.1 is much faster than 10!!!

 

[mehtanilay10]

Yes there are lots of UI issues in W10M! specially when using high contrast.
Hope MS will fix those small UI issues.

 

[fatclue_98]

If I were to ask you to build me a house as cheaply and quickly and possible, you'd have to instantly intervene and tell me I can't have both at the same time. I can either have the house built as quickly as possible, or as cheaply as possible, but not both simultaneously. Those two requirements are mutually exclusive.

Over 30 years in the construction industry allows me to say your statement is unequivocally incorrect. The speed at which any structure is built has nothing to do with the quality of the materials used. There are means and methods available to expedite certain processes but it doesn't affect material take-offs (speed increase, no cost impact). You can skimp on labor by using unskilled workers (not recommended). You can substitute lower cost lumber, for example, but the board-feet required remains the same so there are no gains to the schedule unless you employ other means and methods as I mentioned before. In other words, you can get it cheaper, quicker or both.

 

[a5cent]

Over 30 years in the construction industry allows me to say your statement is unequivocally incorrect. The speed at which any structure is built has nothing to do with the quality of the materials used. There are means and methods available to expedite certain processes but it doesn't affect material take-offs (speed increase, no cost impact). You can skimp on labor by using unskilled workers (not recommended). You can substitute lower cost lumber, for example, but the board-feet required remains the same so there are no gains to the schedule unless you employ other means and methods as I mentioned before. In other words, you can get it cheaper, quicker or both.

Actually, I wasn't thinking of materials at all. I was thinking of labor. I'd be very skeptical if you suggested that the relationship between the number of workers and the rate of progress is always linear. For example, if you assign forty workers to build a home, you'll surely complete the building earlier than if you had assigned 20, but for smaller homes (where you can't efficiently use forty workers at the same time) not twice as fast. I'm assuming there is an optimal number of workers to build a home as quickly as possible and a different number of workers to build that same home as cheaply as possible.

That's why I say you can't achieve both requirements at the same time.

I agree it's not the best analogy, particularly since you've now shown me how easily it is misunderstood.

I hope I've described this well enough so people can understand what the idea was and come up with their own analogy that works better.

 

[Kevin Rush]

Over 30 years in the construction industry allows me to say your statement is unequivocally incorrect. The speed at which any structure is built has nothing to do with the quality of the materials used. There are means and methods available to expedite certain processes but it doesn't affect material take-offs (speed increase, no cost impact). You can skimp on labor by using unskilled workers (not recommended). You can substitute lower cost lumber, for example, but the board-feet required remains the same so there are no gains to the schedule unless you employ other means and methods as I mentioned before. In other words, you can get it cheaper, quicker or both.

Respectfully, "cheaper, quicker or both" is misleading. They are certainly not equals and do not have the same results in terms of quality and accounting.

 

[fatclue_98]

I'm assuming there is an optimal number of workers to build a home as quickly as possible and a different number of workers to build that same home as cheaply as possible.

I didn't want to go down this road because it could be taken out of context sooooo easily but here goes. There isn't any phase of home construction that can't be done significantly cheaper and equal to, or sometimes greater, in quality of workmanship by using immigrant labor. I won't mention specific nationalities but we both know what I'm talking about. I'm no longer surprised at how well and how hard these guys work. Anybody who wonders if work ethic is a lost art needs to visit South Florida.

 

[a5cent]

I didn't want to go down this road because it could be taken out of context sooooo easily but here goes. There isn't any phase of home construction that can't be done significantly cheaper and equal to, or sometimes greater, in quality of workmanship by using immigrant labor. I won't mention specific nationalities but we both know what I'm talking about. I'm no longer surprised at how well and how hard these guys work. Anybody who wonders if work ethic is a lost art needs to visit South Florida.

Yup, but I'm not talking about immigrant labor either (or wage differences). I'm talking only about the number of people simultaneously working on the project, for any given task. No more. No less. Your experience is likely making the analogy harder to understand than it should be, because it's contrived and doesn't really match reality.

Think of it in a theoretical way. The fastest way to install all windows is likely to have one or two people assigned to each window. The time it takes to install all windows is then equal to the time it takes one or two people to install one window. Now imagine assigning manpower to every task in that way, where you add people until adding more doesn't reduce the total time to complete the task. That is the fastest way to get a physical structure built, but it surely is not the most economical way. That's how I arrived at the conclusion that you can have it as fast as possible, or as cheap as possible, but not both. Just like a software system can in some ways be as flexible as possible (e.g. hardware support) or as efficient as possible, but never both.

Don't think I can explain my (admittedly unrealistic) analogy any better, but feel free to replace mine with any other example of mutually exclusive requirements you can think of.

 

[Zachary Boddy]

You're right about all that, but also consider that it basically comes down to conflicting requirements. Some things simply can't be polished "away", no matter how much effort you put into it, at least not without fundamentally changing the design / architecture of the entire software system... at which point we'd be forced to give up other properties we might find desirable.

If I were to ask you to build me a house as cheaply and quickly and possible, you'd have to instantly intervene and tell me I can't have both at the same time. I can either have the house built as quickly as possible, or as cheaply as possible, but not both simultaneously. Those two requirements are mutually exclusive. That's not a perfect analogy for software, but it exemplifies the problem for all the non programmers out there. Windows for desktops / servers is designed to be as flexible as possible in terms of hardware support. If you also want the software to be as efficient as possible on the hardware platform it runs on, then we're out of luck. Those two requirements are also mutually exclusive.

There are thousands of similar trade offs which MS developers made during their work on Windows, and for Windows, peak performance is not always the most important goal. Flexibility, cost of development and maintenance, stability, and a dozen other things are all far more important than being as efficient as possible. The design decisions made with those requirements in mind are an inherent part of the system, and the performance penalties those properties incur can't be optimized away, at least not without removing those properties along with it.

Don't get me wrong... I'm sure MS can still improve a lot on what they currently have... we'll never get back to WP7 or WP8 levels of efficiency though. In exchange, MS now has an OS that is much cheaper to develop and maintain and developers have a unified programming model to makes apps with.

That all makes perfect sense. Microsoft had to compromise in order to achieve the scale that they have with Windows 10. The fact of the matter is, Windows for phones and Windows for PC's are fundamentally different, as it always has been. PC's need to be as flexible as possible, capable of supporting any hardware and any unique function. Phones typically need to be locked down and extremely efficient. Microsoft is attempting to find a middle ground with Windows 10 that also provides a solid, well-built foundation for developers to program and code for all parts of Windows 10. I firmly believe Windows 10 can improve a lot, especially on mobile, as far as performance and efficiency go, and I think we'll see those improvements every time Microsoft makes their expected "plumbing" fixes and changes at the beginning of every new development cycle. It'll take time, but then again, so does everything else. Windows 10 is in a really good place right now. It has a good foundation to build upon and a large enough feature set to satisfy most people. It's also reliable enough that I rarely come across any bug I'm rushing to report to Microsoft (at least on Release Preview).