A little tidbit of news from the inside.

A regular customer of mine works for one of the Azure teams. He comes in at least once or twice a week. Knowing he's a Microsoft employee, I always make time to have a little chit chat with him. He carries a Lumia 830 with the latest Win10 build, and we usually compare and discuss that.. But today, he said he had some news for me; "I'm flying up to Redmond, this week for several meetings about the Win10 launch.. And oh, btw, ARM based phones in September-October, and Intel based phones in January-February"

That's what he said.. Meaning the real "flagship phones" aren't coming until after the first of the year. You don't have to take my word for it, but if you're holding out for a flagship Windows 10 phone, you may want to wait just a couple months longer, and not jump on the first Windows 10 phones you see come out this fall.

Lucky for me, I have TWO lines eligible for upgrades! :)

I have a feeling that the phones coming out this fall are flagships and the ones coming out in February will be business-esque phones, aka not flagships. Unless the new Intel mobile processors are crazy awesome, I don't expect the Intel phones to be as good as one with a snapdragon. I hope to be proven wrong though. Especially if they sneak in the ability to run desktop applications only when docked, I'd buy that so fast.

How will the intel phones run ARM apps? Emulation? Doesn't sound too efficient.

Or the devs will have to recompile all their apps. I have a feeling not many will.

Originally Posted by slyronit

How will the intel phones run ARM apps? Emulation? Doesn't sound too efficient.

Or the devs will have to recompile all their apps. I have a feeling not many will.

They won't have to. The store automatically compiles for different architecture and serves it up for the device. Note: this is for universal apps.

Originally Posted by slyronit

How will the intel phones run ARM apps? Emulation? Doesn't sound too efficient.

Or the devs will have to recompile all their apps. I have a feeling not many will.

Requires no emulation at all! As I already mentioned elsewhere, for most apps it simply doesn't matter.

Most apps are written in a CLR supported language like C#, which similar to Java, is independent of CPU architectures like ARMv7 or x86.

For such CLR supported WP apps, compilation to native code occurs in the cloud, and the store will distribute a different version of the app depending on whether it's an ARMv7 or x86 based device asking for a download.

Note that the post above mine is incorrect, as this has absolutely nothing to do with "universal apps". The universal app concept is about an app's ability to run on different form factors running different OSes (W10, W10M and W10 IoT) and has zilch to do with CPU architectures. IOW, this will work perfectly fine, even if the app you're downloading is a not a universal app

The only time a Store app may not run on an x86 based device is when the app you're interested in was compiled to native code by the developer, which generally is only done for some games which are most often written in C/C++.

Even then though, the developer may quite easily compile and upload both ARMv7 and x86 versions to the store, so even that could work, if desired.

Odd, it wasn't this way with RT on ARM processors. There were many apps that were compiled for Intel only. Gave a poor experience for RT owners initially. Then Universal apps came out. Now correlation does not equal causation, so I could be off base.

Originally Posted by Dewg

Odd, it wasn't this way with RT on ARM processors. There were many apps that were compiled for Intel only. Gave a poor experience for RT owners initially. Then Universal apps came out. Now correlation does not equal causation, so I could be off base.

Something about that statement is off, since RT can not currently run universal apps. :confused: W10 and its variants, none of which are yet officially available, are in fact the first OSes that will run universal apps, so I'm sure you're confusing something here.

Originally Posted by a5cent

Something about that statement is off, since RT can not currently run universal apps. :confused: W10 and its variants, none of which are yet officially available, are in fact the first OSes that will run universal apps, so I'm sure you're confusing something here.

Actually, it was introduced in Windows 8. From Microsoft Dev Network: A Universal Windows app is a Windows experience that is built upon the Universal Windows Platform (UWP), which was first introduced in Windows 8 as the Windows Runtime. Universal Windows apps are most often distributed via the Windows Store (but can also be side-loaded), and are most often packaged and distributed using the .APPX packaging format.

For MS not to introduce everything in time for time for the holiday shopping season would be a HUGE fail IMO just from a marketing stand-point.

Originally Posted by Dewg

Actually, it was introduced in Windows 8. From Microsoft Dev Network: A Universal Windows app is a Windows experience that is built upon the Universal Windows Platform (UWP), which was first introduced in Windows 8 as the Windows Runtime. Universal Windows apps are most often distributed via the Windows Store (but can also be side-loaded), and are most often packaged and distributed using the .APPX packaging format.

Ah, okay, I see what you're referring too. You are absolutely correct of course. It's just that the concept of what constitutes a universal app has changed with W10. A W10 universal app is no longer the same thing as it was in W8, and I thought you were using the more modern definition. In the article you linked to that is alluded to by providing a separate description for W10 universal apps.

However, I'm still certain that there was never an x86 based W8 store app, that achieved the ability to run on ARM devices, by becoming a universal app. One might say this is splitting hairs however, because a universal app that can't run on ARM phones is pretty much senseless. But at least technically, the ability to run on ARM devices was not achieved BECAUSE of that transition to a universal app, although it will have been achieved as part of it.

As stated in the article you linked to, being "universal" refers to an app's ability to run on different form factors, which is basically about sharing one API across phones, tablets and desktops. That article doesn't say anything about CPU architectures, because like I said, that is not directly related to the API issue which universal apps solve.

edit:
This may be an easier way to think about it:

As in your example, assume a Windows Store app that was originally targeted at x86 desktops/laptops and tablets. Saying that such an app will become a universal app implies it must gain two abilities it previously lacked:

a) it must achieve the ability to run not just on tablets but also on phones
b) since all windows phones use ARM chips, it must achieve ARM compatibility and can no longer be restricted to x86 chips.

Becoming a universal app is what allows the app to achieve (a), whereas (b) is more about compiler technology and only tangentially related to the universal apps platform. In the overwhelming majority of cases (strictly from a 3rd party developer's point of view), solving (b) won't require anything more than changing a compiler setting.

However, the question that was raised in this thread was how apps that run on ARM based phones could possibly run on x86 based phones. These apps don't have to be universal to do that. They could very well target no other form factor except phones. As such, they only need to worry about issue (b) mentioned above, whereas (a) is irrelevant.

I see your point - well explained. As I said, correlation does not equal causation, so my observations may be off. However, I've never seen a "universal app" (as defined with Windows 8) that did not work with ARM processors (as it was designed to work for PCs, tablets (including the RT tablets), and phones (ARM). That does not mean they didn't exist. :-)

Don't tell me these things. I've been on my 920 for almost 3 years. If I decide to pass on a 950/950 XL for an Intel-powered device, then it's delayed from the winter to the spring or summer, I'll be REALLY disappointed. I was basically screwed out of the 1520 waiting for McLaren, then the 930, and then W10 M flagships.

Unless Microsoft announces that the Intel stuff has a firm release date at IFA or some other time before the ARM stuff launches, I don't know that I would want to hold off and risk not having a new phone AGAIN. Maybe the W10 launch will have a decent phone around $200 that'll be a real improvement over the 920 (unlike the 830/640 XL), then I'll get it as a tide-me-over device. I can't stay on this 920 and its bad battery life forever.

Originally Posted by Ed Boland

And oh, btw, ARM based phones in September-October, and Intel based phones in January-February"
That's what he said.. Meaning the real "flagship phones" aren't coming until after the first of the year. You don't have to take my word for it, but if you're holding out for a flagship Windows 10 phone, you may want to wait just a couple months longer, and not jump on the first Windows 10 phones you see come out this fall.

So, after all of the recent statements from Nadella, about cutting back on the number of models and about MS's committment to Flagships's this year, he meant next year, but on the early side, at least as things stand now.. . .. And that we will have yet another release of mid-to-low-level phones in the interim, just to confuse and confound and purposefully disappoint everyone who took MS at their word when they indicated that the new phones would really show off WM's capabilities? So that will still be true into the future, but not today?

Originally Posted by Dewg

I see your point - well explained. As I said, correlation does not equal causation, so my observations may be off. However, I've never seen a "universal app" (as defined with Windows 8) that did not work with ARM processors (as it was designed to work for PCs, tablets (including the RT tablets), and phones (ARM). That does not mean they didn't exist. :-)

Yeah, I think we're on the same page now.

With the WP phone market consisting exclusively of ARM based devices, a universal app that can run only on x86 based devices makes zero sense. Like you say, although such an app could technically exist, I think it's safe to assume none currently does.

There is no rule stating that a WP8.x or W10M app must be a universal app however. I think it's guaranteed that we will see non-universal apps (e.g. targeting only phones), which will run on both ARM and (in the future) x86 based smartphones.

In a nutshell, that was my point.

Originally Posted by Keith Wallace

Don't tell me these things. I've been on my 920 for almost 3 years. If I decide to pass on a 950/950 XL for an Intel-powered device, then it's delayed from the winter to the spring or summer, I'll be REALLY disappointed. I was basically screwed out of the 1520 waiting for McLaren, then the 930, and then W10 M flagships.

Yea, I am wondering too. It will be nice to see a TRUE flagship from the ICON/930/1520 and I am on a ICON. I was thinking about seeing the fall lineup but, it makes me wonder if I should wait even longer. There are some limits to the ICON and higher spec'ed with expandable storage would tempt me.

If anything, the new models that come out in Jan/Feb (well, March/April as they are always delayed for some reason), and the 950/950XL (or what ever it will be called), the prices will drop on those. So if the Intel ones are so, so(business mid line models), and it's after 3-5 months after the 950XX release, then you can grab one for like $300 on the used market and never have to worry about a contact....

I guess that is one good way to think about it :/

I wont give up my unlimited data, so I don't get a promo price, so full retail is my only route on Verizon (unless I want to pay $500+ divided over 24 months). I have not been under a contract with Verizon in almost 10 years now....ugh, it's been a while, huh ?

well you can have flagships in both arm and intel, so sept/oct. Intel phones have not been proven yet, will have to see how those play out.

I'll just duck my head in and say you don't need Intel for a flagship.

x86 phone definitely makes sense to be placed in the business segment, especially with Continuum.

I just have to think about the countless announcements of phone manufacturers with Intel in the past (MeeGo anyone?)... how many x86 phones have been released exactly? There's one by Motorola that never got a follow up...

No no, x86 on phones will not be good enough for business. They can't possible be faster than the Atom powered tablets at the most and they are not suitable for business either.

Originally Posted by marratj

x86 phone definitely makes sense to be placed in the business segment, especially with Continuum.

I just have to think about the countless announcements of phone manufacturers with Intel in the past (MeeGo anyone?)... how many x86 phones have been released exactly? There's one by Motorola that never got a follow up...

Think about why x86 phones have never really taken off. Basically, they've just been an ARM competitor, running an OS built for ARM and they were incapable of doing anything that the ARM phones could not do.

However, with Windows 10 and Continuum, a phone with an Intel chip finally makes sense.

Originally Posted by slyronit

No no, x86 on phones will not be good enough for business. They can't possible be faster than the Atom powered tablets at the most and they are not suitable for business either.

These are processors that aren't on the market yet, which is why they won't be available in the Fall. You may be right about the speed, and may not be. We'll have to wait and see what Intel releases for these.

As far as being suitable for business, there are a lot of business people that don't need more power than an Atom powered tablet. My wife, for example. She's a business professional that uses her Windows 8.1 Laptop and Windows Phone 8.1, and her laptop is powered by an Atom. She won't let me buy her a new computer because she says it does everything she needs. She uses only a handful of Desktop Apps that are not power hungry and a few store apps. She would be an ideal candidate for such an Intel Windows 10 mobile phone in the future. She travels a lot, and this would definitely make her load lighter.

For an Architect, however, they need the power of the high end Surface Pro 3 at least when they go portable.

Not for everyone, no. But it would definitely have its place in a large portion of the business sector.

there's been rumor's of an intel based winphone based on code:
Evidence of support for Intel Sofia chipset found in Windows 10 Mobile - WMPoweruserat this point, it just makes sense to start making intel phones if you entire other OS is there too. and, if it doesnt deter battery or gpu performance.

Originally Posted by rory753

there's been rumor's of an intel based winphone based on code:
Evidence of support for Intel Sofia chipset found in Windows 10 Mobile - WMPoweruserat this point, it just makes sense to start making intel phones if you entire other OS is there too. and, if it doesnt deter battery or gpu performance.

Thanks for that. With that information in hand, we can assume that these are basically going to be equivalent to a low end Atom processor, but multi-core. Nice to know. Won't be more powerful than the best Qualcomm, but should be on par or pretty close I believe. Also, as a Windows machine, it just makes sense, though I doubt I'd use it to render videos or compile Visual Studio Code. ;) I'd still like to eventually have one. One day, they'll be powerful enough that it would be all most people will need. Except of course for those who need full workstations and/or supercomputers.

Originally Posted by rory753

at this point, it just makes sense to start making intel phones if you entire other OS is there too. and, if it doesnt deter battery or gpu performance.

MS will have to be very careful managing expectations here.

Fact is that running Windows Desktop programs on a phone will cause a !lot! of battery drain, and depending on the program used, will make your GPU feel like it's being sat on by an elephant. Desktop software was designed with almost no limitations and with the assumption that the computer it's running on will always be plugged in to the power grid. MS can't magically turn that kind of software into something that will run great on power constrained mobile devices. It's just not possible. If it was, there would have been no need for MS' modern environment.

That doesn't make x86 based devices less interesting. MS just needs to be clear about the trade-offs and who it's intended for. In general, this will be targeted towards the stuffy corporations looking to leverage the Windows software they've invested money into over the last 20 years. That will give many corporations options they just didn't have before, without requiring them to spend millions porting old software over to proper mobile OSes.

Some people, particularly the type in these types of forums, will also find uses for this sort of thing, but don't expect it to turn desktop software into something it's not.

Im done waiting. It has been years. Whatever they release this Fall, I am getting it.

Originally Posted by a5cent

Desktop software was designed with almost no limitations and with the assumption that the computer it's running on will always be plugged in to the power grid.

Wow, I better go plug in my laptop then! What about desktop programs on the Surface? What about desktop programs on the Dell Venue Pro 8?

Yes, some programs are meant to be on a hefty desktop or workstation. CAD, Video rendering, next-gen games, but a vast majority of software out there doesn't really tax the CPU all that much. Millions of such programs for the Desktop were designed and first built when the current gen of CPU and GPU was weaker than what comes in a light weight tablet.

I think it's possible to pull it off, but yes, expectations need to be stated for their intended purpose. I don't really believe anyone who uses AutoCAD is going to expect a phone to handle it.

Originally Posted by rhapdog

Wow, I better go plug in my laptop then! What about desktop programs on the Surface? What about desktop programs on the Dell Venue Pro 8?

Yup. I should have been more specific than to just mention "mobile". I was thinking specifically about smartphones... not laptops/convertibles. You are thinking specifically about laptops/convertibles, but comparing them to smartphones just isn't a very fair comparison.

Compared to traditional laptops, something like the Surface Pro 3 is very small, yet it still has two to three times the battery capacity of, say, a Lumia 830. Compared to the Surface Pro 3, the batteries of traditional laptops are huge. Large batteries obviously help a lot, and we won't be getting anything comparable in our phones anytime soon.

People building Windows Desktop software simply don't consider the hardware limitations that typically come with smartphones, most of the time assuming something quite the opposite, and that will inevitably have an impact on battery life.

I'm not saying it won't work at all. I am saying that you can't run Windows desktop software on a smartphone and expect to get anywhere close to the battery life people would traditionally expect from smartphones!

Phone apps don't magically use less power than desktop apps. They are more constrained, but that is more about protecting the user from malware than about power.

Damn it, I thought it wouldn't be too long await now but January / February (just about 7 months - I don't think my 920's battery will hold out that long lol :grincry:.)... just to weigh up my options lol. Since I will most likely be using that phone for the next few years, soo by the time I get round to getting my replacement my 920 would be (theoretically) over 36 months old. However that is not the longest I've used the same phone as a daily driver; the same cannot be said for the removable batteries...

On the bright side it gives me more time to save up :cool:.

Also all this talk about having Intel SOC's in phones would make running full desktop applications natively on phones a reality is just laughable... You can accomplish all basic tasks with modern apps therefore that argument is made redundant for the average joe.

Only the so-called techies are clamouring for this - let me explain why I find this laughable:

People will only get "PC-Like" experience but nothing that will challenge or rival the power of a full fledged win32 desktop or 2-in-1. At best one would hope to get is performance akin to small tablets, that will remain true until both battery technology and SOC power draw improves to a point that makes actually running full desktop apps natively on device whether it is docked or not - viable - as people expect their phones to last all day regardless of what it is running. So to impact every user's experience on behalf of small group of users makes no sense whatsoever.

Instead of focusing on the phone and debating the merits of such functionality, the easiest solution would be to have a AC powered dock that is able to supplement the amount of processing power & system resources available that will work dynamically in tandem with the phone's o/s when docked via usb or connected via miracast.

However said dock would need to atleast 100x more powerful to be able to multitask as it was a full fledged PC / to run applications like Access, Visual Studio, CAD, premier etc. Plus this feature will need to be open lower end devices as well as these devices have a broader reach than flagships in almost all markets hence the need to be substantially more powerful than the host (docked/connected phone). Said dock would also need to function as miracast receiver and device hub {Bluetooth + USB + WiFi+Display Out/HDMI}. In this combination, the phone could run a Snapdragon SOC and the hub either an AMD APU or Intel CPU. This will give everyone the best of both worlds in my opinion and can be easily implemented. The secondary benefit of this method is that it would work with small tablets as well.

The second alternative is to use remote desktop {or apps suchas splashtop} using a dedicated PC to do all the heavy lifting and using miracast/usb + Bluetooth. This can be utilised with present day technology, the only caveat is that this won't work in a corporate environment without the proper provisions set in place.

The primary reason for intel in phones is Windows Hello, I imagine if Qualcomm had a similar + better functionality than Intel then this discussion would be non existent.

Anyway I'm curious to see what other USP's these devices will bring to the table.

Originally Posted by a5cent

Yup. I should have been more specific than to just mention "mobile". I was thinking specifically about smartphones... not laptops/convertibles. You are thinking specifically about laptops/convertibles, but comparing them to smartphones just isn't a very fair comparison.

I know, I just couldn't resist that one. ;) You know how I get.

Originally Posted by a5cent

Compared to traditional laptops, something like the Surface Pro 3 is very small, yet it still has two to three times the battery capacity of, say, a Lumia 830. Compared to the Surface Pro 3, the batteries of traditional laptops are huge. Large batteries obviously help a lot, and we won't be getting anything comparable in our phones anytime soon.

Yes, but we are talking about near future tech, and also far future tech. Batteries that are in development now will give us phones in the fairly near future that are going to be able to last many times over what they are capable of doing now. I'm looking forward to that, and I love to follow that technology as well.

Originally Posted by a5cent

People building Windows Desktop software simply don't consider the hardware limitations that typically come with smartphones, most of the time assuming something quite the opposite, and that will inevitably have an impact on battery life.

I built Windows Desktop software from Windows 3.1 through 7. DOS software before that, and software for the old IBM System/370. I understand what will impact battery life, which is pretty much what impacts CPU Cycles. A good programmer (a bit more rare that it used to be) tries to write programs in such a way as to conserve CPU cycles and make it as efficient as possible. Games are a battery's enemy. You'll find that people who want to dock and run a programmer's text editor won't have any issues with reduced battery life. Someone trying to render a video, well, it just shouldn't be tried with that processor.

Originally Posted by a5cent

I'm not saying it won't work at all. I am saying that you can't run Windows desktop software on a smartphone and expect to get anywhere close to the battery life people would traditionally expect from smartphones!

Technically speaking, if you were to run a desktop app on the phone, it's going to have to be docked to a monitor, keyboard, and mouse. I would expect someone would also have it docked to the charger at the same time, so I don't see where battery life would play into it for that very reason.

Still, a very interesting discussion. What Microsoft will introduce the first time out will be an "Entry Level x86 phone" as far as desktop capabilities go. Intel is hard at work trying to make that next big breakthrough to create a new SoC that will allow phones to rival what higher end desktops today can already do. Will it be here in 2 years? No. But it will come. When it does, I'll probably enjoy playing a few "classic" games like Tomb Raider 2013 on my phone. ;) Yeah, I'll be getting pretty gray by then, but then again, the gray has been coming in pretty nicely over the last year.

Originally Posted by ntice_521

Phone apps don't magically use less power than desktop apps. They are more constrained, but that is more about protecting the user from malware than about power.

You might want to consider where the entire concept of suspending background apps comes from, why that even exists on phones, and why it doesn't exist on Windows Desktop. To be sure, it has nothing to do with malware. Compared to Windows, even Android has draconian restrictions in terms of what can run in the background, how often and for how long. Those restrictions, and many many others like it (e.g. batching of live tile updates), exist specifically to limit battery drain. Windows Desktop software isn't bound by any such restrictions.

Anyway, we do agree that phone apps don't magically use less power than desktop apps...

Originally Posted by rhapdog

Technically speaking, if you were to run a desktop app on the phone, it's going to have to be docked to a monitor, keyboard, and mouse. I would expect someone would also have it docked to the charger at the same time, so I don't see where battery life would play into it for that very reason.

This is exactly what I think too. All of those peripherals, including the charger, can be hooked up to the phone wirelessly. *yay*. I'd bet that is exactly how MS envisions such phones should be used, in which case all battery related issues go away, but it seems to me that's not how most people here are currently thinking about it. People are still thinking "phone" when they probably should be thinking "ultra-ultra-portable laptop + wireless docking station combo". The public (and particularly tech journalists) misunderstanding what a product is and how it's to be used can easily destroy a product's reputation (similar to how most tech journalists constantly insisted on comparing the Surface RT with either laptops or tablets, when it was more appropriately looked at as being in a category of its own). Communicating this correctly, precisely because of all the potential complaints over battery drain that are otherwise sure to ensue, is what I meant when I said MS really needs to manage expectations.

Originally Posted by rhapdog

Yes, but we are talking about near future tech, and also far future tech. Batteries that are in development now will give us phones in the fairly near future that are going to be able to last many times over what they are capable of doing now. I'm looking forward to that, and I love to follow that technology as well.

Believe me. I'm looking forward to that too! If that comes to pass I'll gladly eat my words concerning desktop applications and battery life on smartphones. It's just that I've been reading about such incredible battery tech breakthroughs being just around the corner for almost a decade now. So far nothing has materialized. That doesn't mean we'll never see anything materialize, but until we actually get such a revolutionary battery in a smartphone I'll remain sceptical.

Unfortunately, for the last couple of years, the advancement of battery technology has pretty much stalled. Making them bigger is the only thing currently enabling larger battery capacities.

Originally Posted by rhapdog

I understand what will impact battery life, which is pretty much what impacts CPU Cycles. A good programmer (a bit more rare that it used to be) tries to write programs in such a way as to conserve CPU cycles and make it as efficient as possible.

True, but I think there is more to it than just that. The batching of live tile updates I previously mentioned is just one example. You can wake up the modem on average every three minutes for about 20 seconds, so as to contact a server on behalf of an app looking to update its live tile, or you can wake up the modem only once every 30 minutes and have all live tiles updates occur at once. Both solutions will use the exact same amount of CPU cycles, but over the course of a day, one will drain the battery quite a bit more than the other. There are many other examples like this, all of them small, but they do add up...

Originally Posted by TechFreak1

The primary reason for intel in phones is Windows Hello, I imagine if Qualcomm had a similar + better functionality than Intel then this discussion would be non existent.

Do you have any more info on this? I'm not aware of there being any dependency of Windows Hello on any specific hardware feature of the upcoming Intel SoC.

Something else I as thinking of as well. We keep saying the phones won't have the processing power, but Microsoft already has a solution in place to put the processing power in the cloud. I imagine there will be business customers that will pay for a "service" to allow their heavy lifting to be done in the cloud. Many are doing that now. It could also be done to render CAD, etc. It could turn out to be faster than an i5 and rather convenient. Desktop apps would need to be specially written to take advantage of this, but it is definitely doable. Will it be done for average consumers? No, I don't think so. At least not for a lot of years. Then again, Cortana is an example of that as well. :)

Yeah, I think there are a lot of things about this that Microsoft has been thinking of for years that we haven't even come up with yet. It's going to be an exciting next five years. Finally some innovation is happening after such a stagnation during the last 5 years.

For the last 5 years, new flagships have been about faster processors, more cores, bigger screen, higher resolution, more RAM, updated OS that does the same thing only with more bloat and adding very few features and nothing really innovative or new. Windows 10 for mobile has the potential to differentiate itself from the pack if Microsoft will market it correctly. This could be, for me, as exciting as living through the original PC evolution. I remember that, and it was a fun time to watch technology compete. This is going to be a fun time as well. I'm not going to rush it, I'm going to savor it. :)

Originally Posted by a5cent

Do you have any more info on this? I'm not aware of there being any dependency of Windows Hello on any specific hardware feature of the upcoming Intel SoC.

I think that was a misunderstanding. Windows Hello is dependent on the camera hardware, not the SoC. Windows Hello is rumored to be available on the flagships coming in the fall, but I can't be certain of it, since it's only a rumor. If I'm wrong about that rumor, then I probably just started it. ;)

^ What I suspected too, but just wanting to make sure.

Originally Posted by Ed Boland

And oh, btw, ARM based phones in September-October, and Intel based phones in January-February"

That's what he said.. Meaning the real "flagship phones" aren't coming until after the first of the year. You don't have to take my word for it, but if you're holding out for a flagship Windows 10 phone, you may want to wait just a couple months longer, and not jump on the first Windows 10 phones you see come out this fall.

Lucky for me, I have TWO lines eligible for upgrades! :)

Not for nothing, but I actually confirmed this on July 10 in my AskDan #2 video ;)

Cityman/Talkman are flagship phones but my hunch is this will be the 'enterprise focused' phone Nadella was referring to.

#AskDanWindows Episode 2 - Will Microsoft continue to make Lumias? | Windows Central

Yes, Q1 2016 is the planned date. This an Intel-Microsoft project and was not part of the Nokia lineup (which we're still seeing the remnants of).

This device is also being considered for Surface branding, for what I hope are obvious reasons.

Originally Posted by rhapdog

I think that was a misunderstanding. Windows Hello is dependent on the camera hardware, not the SoC. Windows Hello is rumored to be available on the flagships coming in the fall, but I can't be certain of it, since it's only a rumor. If I'm wrong about that rumor, then I probably just started it. ;)

It is there, once again I confirmed this in AskDan #3, lol #AskDanWindows Episode 3 - Is Microsoft abandoning high-megapixel phones? | Windows Central

Issue is, it won't be working on release as it needs a planned update about a month or two out.

Originally Posted by Daniel Rubino

Cityman/Talkman are flagship phones but my hunch is this will be the 'enterprise focused' phone Nadella was referring to.

Interesting.

That's the exact opposite of what I'd expect. I can see a few reasons businesses might be interested in a x86 compatible smartphone, but I'm not convinced that capability has a lot of mass market appeal for consumers.

The sole exception that comes to mind would be the potential for such a device in countries where smartphones are people's first and only connected computing device. On the other hand, consumers in those regions won't be purchasing anything resembling a high end device, so I think that can be ruled out too.

I don't see the strategy here... maybe a question for the next AskDanWindows? ;-)

Originally Posted by rhapdog

...but a vast majority of software out there doesn't really tax the CPU all that much. Millions of such programs for the Desktop were designed and first built when the current gen of CPU and GPU was weaker than what comes in a light weight tablet.

Yes. I have a lot of friends who basically use ONE piece of desktop software aside from Office, and that is TurboTax. With Office included on Windows Phones, having a phone that can run desktop TurboTax would totally negate their need to even own a PC at all. Crazy! Especially with 200GB microSD cards out now, it is ridiculous what these Intel phones could be capable of! I hope the continuum docks will include the ability to attach an external hard drive to your phone to back up all your photos/videos etc... Then most people REALLY wouldn't need a computer at all.

With all the stuff you'll have to carry to make this work might as well just carry a tablet like a Surface 3 and use that. Cool tech yes but seems a lot of trouble to reinvent the wheel here.
Sent from my S3

Originally Posted by AccentAE86

Yes. I have a lot of friends who basically use ONE piece of desktop software aside from Office, and that is TurboTax. With Office included on Windows Phones, having a phone that can run desktop TurboTax would totally negate their need to even own a PC at all. Crazy! Especially with 200GB microSD cards out now, it is ridiculous what these Intel phones could be capable of! I hope the continuum docks will include the ability to attach an external hard drive to your phone to back up all your photos/videos etc... Then most people REALLY wouldn't need a computer at all.

Thank you. You just made my point for the quote below.

Originally Posted by theefman

With all the stuff you'll have to carry to make this work might as well just carry a tablet like a Surface 3 and use that. Cool tech yes but seems a lot of trouble to reinvent the wheel here.
Sent from my S3

See the quote above from AccentAE86.
You see, most people don't need to carry all this stuff to make it work. They need a phone while out and about, and a PC at home on a few occasions. Most people let their PCs sit and collect dust until they need to do their taxes or do some work in Office. They do all that at home.

Some people might want the PC functionality while on vacation or a business trip. Great! It's not that hard to pack a very small docking station, keyboard and mouse into a suitcase. You can also pack a portable HDMI Miracast dongle to plug into the hotel's TV, and you're all set! Then you can view those vacation pictures on the big screen, handle emails on the big screen and a full keyboard, make easier posts to Facebook or whatever it is you want to do.

Please don't act as if it HAS to be a full PC all the time just because it has the capability. It's still just a phone, but for many it could replace their computer as well. There are many people, however, that will still need a laptop to get things done. If they make a "laptop shell" (rumor has it that they will), then you could simply carry a lighter weight, thinner laptop with you. The laptop shell could be your screen, keyboard, touchpad (in place of mouse with option to add wireless mouse of course), and docking plug all-in-one. It could also house a bigger battery since it doesn't need a computer inside it or cooling apparatus. Better battery life and can keep your phone charged as well. That would be a good replacement laptop for me right there.

Originally Posted by DavidinCT

Yea, I am wondering too. It will be nice to see a TRUE flagship from the ICON/930/1520 and I am on a ICON. I was thinking about seeing the fall lineup but, it makes me wonder if I should wait even longer. There are some limits to the ICON and higher spec'ed with expandable storage would tempt me.

If anything, the new models that come out in Jan/Feb (well, March/April as they are always delayed for some reason), and the 950/950XL (or what ever it will be called), the prices will drop on those. So if the Intel ones are so, so(business mid line models), and it's after 3-5 months after the 950XX release, then you can grab one for like $300 on the used market and never have to worry about a contact....

I guess that is one good way to think about it :/

I wont give up my unlimited data, so I don't get a promo price, so full retail is my only route on Verizon (unless I want to pay $500+ divided over 24 months). I have not been under a contract with Verizon in almost 10 years now....ugh, it's been a while, huh ?

(I don't check these forums often, so I just saw this reply)

I think it's easier to consider it when you're on the ICON. The thing's not yet 18 months-old. However, as someone on a 3-year-old 920, I don't know that I want to wait much longer. It could mean missing out on an Intel device, but the other option is possibly waiting 6 months, finding out an Intel device is actually a late-2016 plan, and them trying to make it to FOUR YEARS on a 920 whose battery life fit the description of "poor" probably 6 months ago.

I had actually considered going to Verizon (or at least looking at it) when they announced AT&T would start charging an activation fee on Next from August 1st, forward. However, that was quickly followed with news that Verizon might not even give us a Windows 10 device, meaning it's not an option for me. Sprint is Verizon with worse coverage and horrible commercials, and is the new Lumias are ONLY produced as unlocked GSM devices, they won't get a device, either. That leaves T-Mobile's awful coverage as AT&T's only alternative in the U.S. Man, this might be a crappy launch.