I've honestly wondered about this a lot…maybe it's because it sets a bad precedence, but you would think MSFT has enough money and clout to negotiate the development of some of the most wanted apps. Or set up a studio to do the work as contractors to the original developers.
Microsoft Reportedly Testing New Phone With New Windows Mobile OS
- Thread starter Extremevl
- Start date
I've honestly wondered about this a lot…maybe it's because it sets a bad precedence, but you would think MSFT has enough money and clout to negotiate the development of some of the most wanted apps. Or set up a studio to do the work as contractors to the original developers.
Drael646464
New member
MSFT owns 1.5% of facebook, so they are probably always a little inclined to program stuff for windows. However, people always bring up paying off developers, and the route of paying developers to have THE SAME apps as other platforms doesn't make as much sense as paying developers/making deals to get apps THAT ONLY EXIST on windows IMO. Power software, desktop games, creative software, enterprise software etc.
Still either way, spending money on getting devices in consumers hands makes more sense I think, because devices in consumers hands equals users, which is what devs all want.
Windows on arm for example will make useful on tablets and laptops a range of mobility software that could be ported via islandwood from ios. And even though it does run win32 it runs it, at best case, 70% native speed , and often I would guess slower. So even if your software runs via win32 on WoA tablets and laptops, like the new centennial bridge WhatsApp desktop app will, it won't run AS WELL, as a full UWP.
If you can see my point, creating devices in users hands, like windows s, and windows on arm, the new console, mixed reality etc, as ways to envourage developers to write for users on the platform, makes more sense as an investment because it casts a wider net, and its actually creating a market, rather than artificially pretending their is one.
A studio isn't a bad idea, a small one, for little app gaps, to cheaply contract windows UWP apps. But in many cases, the companies would still need to see a bottom line...
Exactly this for me. I have an iPad Pro, and I gotta say, that as Apple tries to introduce new baked in functionality to iOS, it feels the same way.
aj173
New member
That's the thing; Microsoft isn't sitting out of the mobile space. They're done an outstanding job of breaking into consumer mobile......if you own an iOS or Android device. You could argue quite convincingly that MS has never been in a better position in the consumer mobile market. But keep in mind that Microsoft being "mobile first" doesn't necessarily require that Microsoft have their own viable mobile OS. Windows Phone diehards like us tend to automatically conflate the two. However, most companies that have been successful in delivering consumer mobile products and services actually don't have their own moble OS. In the eyes (and wallet) of Microsoft, subscribing to Office 365 on an Android phone works just as well for them as subscribing to it on a Windows Phone. Microsoft is in mobile. Just not in the way we dream about in our little heads.
mtf1380
Active member
I think MS should get out of the Full-Line mobile business for good, and stick with "a" top-of-the-line, Surface Brand Only, product...and leave the full line category to the OEMs. That way Microsoft can focus on the prestige of a true flagship phone, and capitalize on some much needed press and respect. Focusing on innovation, style, form factor and a solid OS, would be monies very well spent, and well within their abilities. The flagship should be designed, and produced, for the promotion of the ecosystem's capabilities and what a determined Microsoft is able to create; its goal should not be based on profit, but for demonstrating innovation. Giving some much needed respect to Microsoft's image, as a powerhouse.
vitaliesolomon
New member
i really hope that the continuum technology is better involved in this new platform. i am already tired to have a computer for some specific tasks. i want a computer that is good at any task or that can bring with me all my most important data.
fatclue_98
Retired Moderator
That's the most level-headed idea I've read in a while. But that only works if OEMs with consumer brand awareness come onboard. HP isn't a household name with phones and Alcatel is barely known except for cheap Android phones languishing in the prepaid section of any carrier's store. BTW, I had never noticed that gorgeous Shepherd in your avatar.
Drael646464
New member
From what I have now read, in insider leaks, the patents, the windows code already existing, there is zero doubt in my mind their is an "andromeda" device, that will be catergory defining (dual screens, detachable magnetic hinge). I suspect it'll be an enterprise focused device though, and not so much a replacement as a "something new". A sibling, not a reboot.
I also doubt it will run windows on arm, but rather a relative of win10m, with cshell. There is something in the works, but keep your expectations in check folks, because this seems designed to carve a niche, not "rule the smartphone market". And its not a graphene screen from everything I've seen, simply a clever hinge.
I also doubt it will run windows on arm, but rather a relative of win10m, with cshell. There is something in the works, but keep your expectations in check folks, because this seems designed to carve a niche, not "rule the smartphone market". And its not a graphene screen from everything I've seen, simply a clever hinge.
mtf1380
Active member
Yeah, she's my baby
, thank youIn a perfect world, I'd like to see Sony get behind MS and they collaborate on the use of Sony's Camera patents/technology for the high-end OEM; and: Huawei, Xiamoi, and/or Oppo as the full line OEM.
a5cent
New member
I don't really know anything about Andromeda, but was wondering why you think it would run a relative of W10M?
Windows with CShell is still Windows. Windows with CShell is not a "relative of Windows". If Andromeda isn't going to run W10oA, but W10M with CShell, then that too is still just be W10M, right?. That is, unless the OS on Andromeda is another new Win32-less version of Windows that would co-exist alongside W10M. I just can't think of any good justification for that.
Flying by the seat of my pants (and with no real info to go on), it seems that strategically there is no sense in this device running anything except W10oA.
On a separate note, I'm wondering how useful the phrase "enterprise focused" really is. I think some take that to just mean it won't be marketed on television. Others imagine that it will have some arcane features only corporate administrators care about which a consumer focused device would not. Others give it no thought at all and just think that means "it's not for me", for whatever reason. With so many ways of interpreting that phrase, I think we'd do well to find a better term. When MS folk use that phrase, I think they are trying to set/manage expectations. IMHO it's how they signal that the device is not for running apps, and that MS isn't even going to try to improve the app store situation for W10M.
Enterprise focus = it's for running full Windows software (hence W10oA rather than W10M) = don't expect to find apps for this anymore than you would expect to find apps for a desktop PC.
Drael646464
New member
Well there's a number of reasons for this, it relies on the evidence that exists, and logic.
*Patents and code indicate a design which is "detachable dual screen clamshell". Now a detachable magnetic hinge leaves a screen gap. You can see this in the aspiration video, and the patent.
Its not ideal to be running full screen apps with a blind stripe in the middle of your screen. In fact it would be highly annoying.
*Thurott gave a direct quote about the new SKU that runs on this device, from an insider. It said "branch of win10m". ie, based on, a relative of win10m. And I've heard that also from other insider rumours, when they are directly quoted. Fans and bloggers might always say windows on arm, but I've never heard that directly quoted from an insider. And it doesn't entirely make sense, outside of a continuum type concept (and there could easily be something else in the works for that, like a table projector)
*It would be a relative of win10m, and not win10m, because its running an entirely different UI and likely different elements in the software stack. Two detachable screens, is not the win10m experience, its kind of alien. I expect the variant will be engineered to generally also handle other multi-screen experiences. It could all be folded into the win10m code, but its going to be new code either way
*Concept videos from MSFT aspirational videos show a basically identical style of device running two apps, one on each screen. This makes sense with a detachable design, and with one with a screen gap
Such a device would seemingly be focused on multi-tasking. Something enterprise users want, and casual users usually don't. In the aspirational video it showed someone skyping and making a phone call, whilst looking at maps and charts. Two tasks at once. 'Dual screening'.
That might be useful to ordinary people, but not as much as it is for business.
Perhaps we could just call it a 'pro' feature. As prosumers and general professionals might be equally interested in a sort of constantly running "two bits of information or activities at the same time" experience.
I expect there may be apps that also display parts on each screen. Perhaps you can span the whole screen, but generally that would be a bad UX I think.
That's what it appears to be. Andromeda, as an SKU, is listed along side all the others in the composable shell code. I think the justification would be that there is no real use for win32 on a device that size ...yet, factoring in the screen gap (and outside of continuum docking).
In ten or fifteen years graphene screen tech would make a true folding tablet design cheap enough for the mass market. But right now that's a while off. I think a projector of some sort could offer a bridge for that, so that win32 has more actual use on a phone.
But graphene tech is quite a while off. So its sort of a roadmap situation. Gen 2 or 3 of this might have as little screen gap as possible. But by the time we actually get to flexible screen tech, I think MSFT will want all the major apps over to UWP. I'd also hope that was the case by then.
Plus, IMO , windows on arm, isn't supposed to be an 'end point'. The future is supposed to be UWP.
Windows on arm, really if anything is designed to get _rid_ of win32s IMO.
They will run at anything from 70 percent of native UWP speed downwards, and won't generally be designed to scale to the sizes that ARM can afford devices.
They also won't generally take advantage of always on LTE, GPS, toast notifications etc. With disperate device sizes, and lower processing power than desktops and higher spec intel notepads and tablets, win32 is just kinda "there". It works but its not what it could be.
UWP's will be the superior UX, whenever there is an alternative. Which will lead users to complain, or pick UWP options whenever they are available.
Developers won't want to keep their apps win32 if windows on arm has any marketplace success, which it probably will. Users will only use them, so long as there are no better scaling, more intergrated and faster running alternatives.
It's kind of like a backwards compatibility. Like being able to run xbox one games on the next xbox x, or running 32 bit, on 64 bit. Its a bridge to the past, to enable the future.
Last edited:
a5cent
New member
Yeah. My understanding and experience in the software industry typically leads me to far more accurate predictions than anything most bloggers might say. As we stated elsewhere, most of it is BS ;-) I think I've pretty much ignored everything on this issue except what I've seen from MS, but that has been very little.
Before I start, let me clarify my terminology: Windows Professional, Enterprise and Home are different SKUs. They are editions of the same OS. In contrast, I view W10M as a different "Windows flavored" OS. To call two operating systems the same, people with a CS background typically consider the ability to run the same software (without emulation) the main criteria. W10M doesn't run Win32 software while W10 can, which is why I consider them to be different OSes.
Anyway, Thx for the details. I don't know enough to add to or dispute anything directly related to Andromeda, but these are just a few things to think about:
OK, but that doesn't necessarily make Andromeda a separate SKU or "relative" however. For example, right now we have at least two branches of W10M. One in the main Windows branch and the feature2 branch. Both are just plain old W10M though. They are merely separate development paths where different features are added or experimented with. In fact, this is standard MO for any project at MS, as each will typically use their own branch for development and eventually merge back into the main branch when things are stable enough for release.
My point here is only that an insider saying that Andromeda is developed in a "branch of W10M" doesn't really mean anything EXCEPT that Andromeda is derived from W10M (the Win32-less version of Windows). If Andromeda ends up being the only branch of W10M that receives sustained developer attention, and it can run W10M apps, then that would make Andromeda the re-branded successor of W10M (like W10M was the successor of WP8).
Judging OS "relatedness" by their UI is a highly inaccurate way of judging similarity. Take W10 for example. It can run on a 8" screen or on three 40" displays simultaneously. It can be used with a pen, a touch screen, a mouse and keyboard, or a VR headset. Those are also very different experiences. Going by your understanding those would be different OSes. For various reasons, we just know that they are all powered by the same OS. The same applies to W10M or Andromeda. The UI experience is pretty much meaningless in terms of whether or not it's the same OS running things behind the curtains.
The UI stack behind WP8 was also very different fro the UI stack behind WP7. Still, WP8 ran WP7 apps just fine and it was clearly the successor to WP7.
Finally, W10 also contained a lot of new code over W8. That didn't make it an entirely different/distinct OS either. Everybody would agree that W10 was the successor of W8 and the same OS.
Again, my point is that none of these issues are a good way of judging whether Andromeda is the successor of W10M or a separate OS. Judging by the UI is probably the worst possible way.
I see no reason W10oA couldn't take advantage of GPS or always on LTE etc. Always-connected functionality has been a part of Windows ever since the Intel Atom. W10 already includes the same location services W10M does, so I see no reason why W10oA couldn't also support GPS. That claim makes little sense to me. Apart from that I agree with everything else you said about W10oA vs UWP.
Yet, that doesn't make me any less skeptical.
Supporting or not supporting Win32 is pretty much the only thing that warrants maintaining a separate OS. None of the other technical reasons given come anywhere close to that kind of differentiation. In all other regards, everything MS has striven towards has reduced the number of separate OSes. Andromeda being a separate Win32-less OS would run counter to that.
Furthermore, MS gave up trying to popularize the app store directly. They decided they can't make it popular except through Win32 compatibility, which is why they put W10M on the back burner. That's the whole point of W10oA. Creating another Win32-less version (not just an SKU) of the Windows OS would also run counter to that. If MS intends to release another Win32-less version of Windows, then putting W10M on the back burner would have been the stupidest idea ever, as that has severely reduced interest from all parties. Not that MS doesn't ever do stupid things, but they aren't that stupid. This would basically represent another strategic shift before they even got around to implementing any part of the previous shift.
This is again just to explain why I remain skeptical of the idea that Andromeda will be a distinct OS alongside W10 (of which W10oA is just an SKU) and W10M. None of the technical reasons for it being distinct really hold any water, and strategically it just doesn't jive at all with MS' current strategy.
Despite knowing nothing about Andromeda, MS' strategy and the technical framework they operate from suggests it must be based either on W10oA or it must be the successor to W10M (both supporting novel hardware).
Of course, I reserve the right to change my mind in light of more and better information. ;-)
Last edited:
a5cent
New member
If you really want to interpret "enterprise focus" as meaning "features for enterprise users" (which I don't think matches MS' interpretation), then you probably shouldn't take that to mean multitasking and task switching. Enterprise features are things like share-point integration, manageability, azure authentication, etc.
IMHO the ability to work with multiple windows or run background processes is a productivity feature, which anyone who has ever used a desktop computer simply expects from a device that facilitates desktop like usage scenarios. Selling that as an enterprise feature would probably get MS laughed out of most CTO's offices.
Drael646464
New member
My background is in business computing, specifically networking, although I have done some basic coding in my time.
I don't think that is the standard technical view of OS, ie which APIs are included for running software. For example blackberry 10 features the android runtime, but I am not sure anyone would argue that its a flavour of android.
The entire software stack, right down to the hardware level, ie the OS as a whole, I think is how people technically consider an OS. In that respect, win10m and windows 10, are relative, they share one core, and will one day share cshell. They also share a lot of other code.
Technically the simple linguistic view of an operating system is "An operating system (OS) is system software that manages computer hardware and software resources and provides common services for computer programs.", which is perhaps something in between we see this, as software developers and network engineers respectively. However even on that level, win10m and windows 10 for the desktop share enough code that they provide similar hardware management and services, even if they handle software management differently.
Identity as a form of shared property possession, is probably a little philosophical however, and I'd betting some people would split it slightly different ways.
True, but it doesn't mean win10m is being replaced either. The language branch only refers to being based on. The topic of whether win10m is getting further features as promised, or how long it will be supported, often ends up being speculative, subjective and pretty fruitless, and we could probably just dump that one to avoid that dumpster fire.
In this case, perhaps our different background, lead my language to be confusing. I was talking about the GUI. Not the user interface. Specifically the way this OS is working on the surface (running two related screens with separate apps, or one app with two separate pages of information, and the ability for those to interface, and dynamically shape themselves in response to magnetic connection orientation etc). The way you interact with the OS software on this device will be quite radically different from win10m.
Does that mean a separate SKU? Well, technically it might not, given some of that could all be packed into composable shell, and spread across every SKU identically, however the fact that Andromeda is listed in the composable shell code amongst all the other SKUs such as windows 10 home, and windows 10 mobile, suggests everything that I originally said - that it is a relative OS, and the win10 is going to continue as a separate entity (else why code cshell for it). That composable shell code is present in current APIs, in current windows code.
Perhaps they will change their mind, but this stuff isn't just being pulled out of a hat, I'm working on a wholistic deductive process here, matching data points together. It's not a lof of data, and I could be wrong, or they could change their mind, but this is how it looks to me.
Of course that doesn't specifically mean it can't run win32s either, although I don't see the point in that, personally. win32's spanned across a screen with a gap in the middle would be the user bugbear of a lifetime.
Well, IDK. I would call it a very closely related OS. Windows home for example doesn't have domain joining ability, so it differs on the network layer.
I wouldn't call it the "same OS", any more than I'd consider 95 "the same OS" as windows 10. They are closely related OSes in my mind, which share a historical lineage. Sorry to split hairs!
Well again, its none of these singular points that has lead me to this conclusion. Perhaps that's just hard to convey without a person seeing all these little things first hand. I don't think I have a complete picture, and I guess time will tell anyway.
I meant win32.
yes, win32 CAN take advantage of scaling, always on LTE, GPS and toast notifications. They generally don't but they could. This is true.
But at which point, running a native UWP on windows on arm would be even closer, in terms of the code, and getting that 30%+ extra performance would just seem more attractive. Running your software on an emulation layer for a significant portion of users, at reduced performance is never going to seem ideal to software companies, even if the software is very light. Whilst technically it may work okay, it will still work better as UWP.
I am not privy to what services, GUI, networking qualities, or other features this new SKU possesses. MSFT is pretty experienced at programming, I am sure they know what they are doing though.
It seems like they are running against that in general these days. Windows S, windows on arm - they are increasing SKUs atm. I don't think that's a permenant thing, I think its a bridge/roadmap type thing, to encourage UWP, before later, everything win10m included is merged.
ATM the hardware isn't really up to everything from IoT core, being the exact same OS. With moore's law slowing, it could be awhile before we see the IoT getting 4gb of ram standard. To a certain degree, running shared code and services is as far as it can go right now (one core, cshell, networking later, Cortana etc).
That's the exact opposite to how I see their current strategy and windows on arm. But I explained that in the last post, how windows on arm, is actually a way to reduce win32s,not encourage them. Much like a kind of backward compatibility, in order to promote the new thing.
Windows s encourages centennials.
windows arm encourages native UWP, and also apps that take advantage of built in as standard always connected LTE
Cshell encourages, along with WoA, app scaling.
It's a bit like sheep dogs, herding software developers
Has interest in UWP dev actually decreased though? I see big software development houses doing UWPs, recently. Certainly developing specifically for mobile may have decreased. But there are advantages of doing full UWP, beyond mobile, even currently before cshell and windows on arm are released.
I don't see anything they are doing atm as stupid. The work on bugfixing win10m, and focusing of bugfixes makes a lot of sense in light of the notion of a branch thereof for a new product.
Everyone is entirely welcome to believe what they like. Interesting how differently we view MSFTs current strategy actually though. I see everything right now, as herding people, piecemeal into UWP, you see them as moving back to win32, and sort of giving up on their universal, multi-platform approach? Is that right?
I don't really see that.
I can't in fact see any real benefit to even running win32 on a mobile sized screen. It's horrible enough an experience on an eight inch tablet. Bringing that experience to an even worse UX level, would just seem to be terrible strategy. Continuum might be "a benefit", but continuum isn't even particularly popular as a feature. Its more for enthusiasts. Even with refinement I think it'll be a long time before it catches on.
WoA is different because at least its a bigger screen.
I also don't really see the benefit in wildly changing win10m. It could use some minor graphic tweaks, some bug fixes. And of course, ongoing feature support. But there's nothing actually wrong with it, conceptually.
Perhaps Silverlight support should be dropped, to further encourage UWP, when the timing is right. And cshell makes sense, but that's a pretty minor GUI change for the most part, and its supposed to be coming to every single SKU - Would that then make windows home "rebooted", and IoT enterprise? I don't think so.
I can't think of anything substantial that either would be changed or needs to be changed right now. To add something like arm win32 emulation, you'd actually need a common use case scenario - a graphene based screen (years off), a table projector (maybe, but its a battery drainer, and is still somewhat niche). Plugging a phone into a dock, just isn't something I see a lot of people doing no matter how good continuum is, unless they lack money for multiple devices.
So yeah, personally I can't really see the point of win32 on a phone, nor can I see what would be, or needs to be 'rebooted' in windows mobile. Minor graphical tweaks and bugfixes aside (I don't think those count as reboots".
Okay, your probably technically correct. Although clearly productivity features will sell better to enterprises, professionals and so on than every day consumers.
Let's just say "multi-tasking is not a feature that is going to drive the average joe consumer to buy this new device". It's a niche product.
Last edited by a moderator:
a5cent
New member
The ability to run the same software without emulation would be viewed as the most reasonable definition by every CS major I've ever discussed it with. Wikipedia also takes this as a reasonable starting point for a definition. However, there is no formal definition, so you are free to make up your own. That's why I said this is "my terminology".
Your example of Blackberry using ART and how that, based on my terminology, would mean Blackberry is Android is very much flawed, but that's beside the point here. I'd rather move on.
I don't want to debate or argue my definition of what constitutes a separate OS. I just wanted to draw a clear line between what I consider to be different OSes (W10, W10M, IoT) and what I consider to be just different editions of the same OS (Home, Professional, Server). Just understand how I use the terminology and understand my statements in that context. That is all.
That is so beside the point I'm not sure why you bring it up. Again, mouse and keyboard input, touch input, and AR input are all supported by Windows HOME! Supporting those radically different methods of input and user experiences doesn't require multiple OSes. It doesn't even require different edition of the OS. It's all supported by one and the same OS. This seems so obvious it's hard to understand your need to debate it. You seem hell bent on using aspects of the UI to make predictions about Andromeda's lineage, when existing technology demonstrates well enough it isn't useful in that regard.
Nobody is talking about about running Win32 software on a mobile sized screen. The point of having Win32 on a mobile sized device is to be able to run Win32 software on a large screen when the mobile device is hooked up to one. I thought that was well established fact. It's the whole point of MS making W10oA.
Not at all. I can't by the life of me imagine how you came to that conclusion. In general I find that you and I have a lot of difficulty understanding each other. What I listed above are your biggest misunderstandings of my post, but they exist in every single paragraph throughout. I don't really know why that is, but going through them all would fill a very boring book.
I do try and word my statements as precisely as I can. That opens up my posts for nit picking, as there are always enough details available. I provide those details regardless, because it's my goal to make it as easy as possible for you to correctly defer meaning and intent. That's why I decided it was useful to define what I mean by "different OS". Instead of helping you, that side tracked you into an argument that doesn't add anything to the discussion. To me it seems that you have little interest in parsing meaning and intent, and would prefer to split hairs or paint with an extremely broad brush (whichever best supports your view at any given time). I suspect that's not at all how you see your own writing, nor is it your goal.
I find discussions with you could be very interesting and fruitful, but most of it gets buried under such a huge pile of misinterpretations and misunderstandings that it's almost not worth it. A shame. I wish we could fix that.
Last edited:
Maybe because intel will sue if anything using the x86 emulation. So MS must make a native code.
Drael646464
New member
Semantics and misinterpretations aside I don't personally feel win32 via a continuum dock is a super saleable feature. I think phone docking is very niche unless it can be made cheap for developing countries. And Windows on arm is for tablets laptops and servers as far as I can tell. Without either graphene screen tech that's out of reach or a table projector I just don't see much commercial point in win32 on phones.
Just doesn't seem like a product that even 0.5 percent of people will want to use unless it's super cheap. There's laptops, tablets for portable computing, and anywhere there's a screen and keyboard there's an attendant computer for the most part. Continuum in the commercial state its in now its probably where its going to stay until makers realise the main benefit is reduced cost not increased mobility, without an actual big screen that goes with you.
My point with Windows on arm, is that running on emulation at fractions of the speed, whilst offering features desirable for iOS app ports like toast notifications whilst sleeping, isn't there to encourage win 32 but to encourage uwp, which is native and a better UX. People seem to assume it's to promote win32, but at a reduced speed emulation, and offering smartphone like capabilities its more like a bridge built on backwards compatibility. It's just so users of tablets and notebooks have access to those apps while everything is still moving to uwp. Like backwards compatibility in a game console when the number of titles is still low. When enough win32s become full uwp there's no real point of win32 on a phone even when it gets a graphene screen. The style of app is irrelevant, its what those apps can do.
That's my perspective and so for me its hard for me to imagine why any focus would be put into win 32 on phones without some new groundbreaking display tech. I mean maybe a few hotel bound business folk might use it, but that hardly justifies a new OS or massive code hours Imo. Where as a gui and software services change in the OS (maybe domain join too) to focus on highly useable and flexible dual screen multi tasking, that seems like a viable niche with a market volume worth investment.
Just doesn't seem like a product that even 0.5 percent of people will want to use unless it's super cheap. There's laptops, tablets for portable computing, and anywhere there's a screen and keyboard there's an attendant computer for the most part. Continuum in the commercial state its in now its probably where its going to stay until makers realise the main benefit is reduced cost not increased mobility, without an actual big screen that goes with you.
My point with Windows on arm, is that running on emulation at fractions of the speed, whilst offering features desirable for iOS app ports like toast notifications whilst sleeping, isn't there to encourage win 32 but to encourage uwp, which is native and a better UX. People seem to assume it's to promote win32, but at a reduced speed emulation, and offering smartphone like capabilities its more like a bridge built on backwards compatibility. It's just so users of tablets and notebooks have access to those apps while everything is still moving to uwp. Like backwards compatibility in a game console when the number of titles is still low. When enough win32s become full uwp there's no real point of win32 on a phone even when it gets a graphene screen. The style of app is irrelevant, its what those apps can do.
That's my perspective and so for me its hard for me to imagine why any focus would be put into win 32 on phones without some new groundbreaking display tech. I mean maybe a few hotel bound business folk might use it, but that hardly justifies a new OS or massive code hours Imo. Where as a gui and software services change in the OS (maybe domain join too) to focus on highly useable and flexible dual screen multi tasking, that seems like a viable niche with a market volume worth investment.
Last edited by a moderator:
psurob55
New member
come on surface phone.
Apologize for the bump, but I've been on android for a while now and I just MISS WP.
Surface phone HAS to happen! Or maybe brand off xbox and target gamers? I don't know, we just need SOMETHING!
Apologize for the bump, but I've been on android for a while now and I just MISS WP.
Surface phone HAS to happen! Or maybe brand off xbox and target gamers? I don't know, we just need SOMETHING!
evillama
New member
Ugh, great...I ordered two S8's on Black Friday since they were discounted. Not looking forwarded to making the switch, but some of us have really reached the end of our rope. Have to say though that while I'm giving leeway to MS Customer Service probably having to hire a bunch of off-the-street folks to cover all the additional calls their Support Lines, their quality of service has been HORRIBLE. Five times I got disconnected, trying to get an update where my phones are in process (still says "Pending" on the MS Store site, no tracking #, no target delivery date, nada.) Three separate agents just said, "Trust us, you'll get it." WTF?? Really? Is this 1990 I'm calling back to??? No freakin' wonder there's no Surface Phone out there.
Didn't have time to reply, but guess what,
everything is still using what you call legacy APIs because these APIs are actually system calls to the OS components. So maybe I do not understand anything about Windows OSs but why insult me and call me ignorant?
Similar threads
Trending Posts
-
Microsoft's Xbox has taken over the Sony's PlayStation Store 🤯
- Started by Windows Central
- Replies: 17
-
Manor Lords FAQ: Release date, Xbox, Early Access, price, and other questions answered
- Started by Windows Central
- Replies: 0
-
Post pictures of your latest purchase- Started by Laura Knotek
- Replies: 3K
-
Could 'Diablo' get a TV show like Fallout? We asked Blizzard.
- Started by Windows Central
- Replies: 0
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram