04-15-2012 05:19 PM
93 ... 234
tools
  1. canesfan625's Avatar
    By the time WP8 ships the Gen 1 handsets will be 2 years old, and the early adopters like myself will be at the end of our contracts and ready for renewal and a shiny new Apollo handset. Sounds like a good time to leave those Gen 1 machines behind. Of the Gen 2 handsets the Lumia 900 is the one I most expect to see upgraded, simply because it's the last of them and the most likely to have taken Apollo's requirements into account.




    Actually it's the Galaxy S2 that is similar to the Galaxy Nexus. ICS (Android 4.0) was developed on the Galaxy Nexus, and the Galaxy S2 *is* getting ICS (Samsung Outs Galaxy S II ICS Guide For Customers).

    The Galaxy S that you mentioned is similar to the Nexus S, which was the developer machine for the previous phone version of Android (Gingerbread/Android 2.3). The Nexus S is getting ICS but Samsung has announced that the Galaxy S will not be getting it. But this is a bit of an apples-and-oranges comparison - Galaxy S isn't really running the same operating system as the Nexus S; it's running Samsung TouchWiz, which while based on Android is heavily enhanced and needs much more resources than the version of Android it's based on. Bone stock ICS will run on the Nexus S, but only just. The combination of TouchWiz version + ICS is simply too much for that hardware.

    Interestingly, the phone that was used for Froyo (Android 2.2) development, the Nexus One, will not be getting ICS from Google or anybody else. It got one major update a year after its release (from 2.2 to 2.3), then was left behind the next year when 4.0 came out. This is roughly what I expect from WP7 - the original windows phones shipped with 7.0, got 7.5 a year later, and a year after that are abandoned by WP8. Maybe Microsoft will do better, maybe the Gen 1 devices will run WP8. But I wouldn't be at all surprised if they don't, and even less surprised if AT&T blocks any WP8 update that Microsoft does release for those old handsets, because AT&T wants those 2-yr upgrades.
    There is absolutely no technical reason that the Galaxy S can't run ICS. Who cares about touchwiz? Probably not a single one of the 10 million people that got screwed. So now they have to do what Android excels at. Fragmentation through custom ROMS which ironically run better than the official one.

    -EDIT- haha almost forgot about that "value pack" they were planning on bringing. what a joke
    03-23-2012 08:35 PM
  2. mparker's Avatar
    There is absolutely no technical reason that the Galaxy S can't run ICS. Who cares about touchwiz? Probably not a single one of the 10 million people that got screwed. So now they have to do what Android excels at. Fragmentation through custom ROMS which ironically run better than the official one.
    Well, Samsung cares about touchwiz, of course, and believe that it gives them a competitive advantage. Given their position in the Android market I'm willing to consider the possibility that they might be right about this. Personally I can't stand TouchWiz. But they've sold a metric cr*pton of phones with it. Personally I can't stand iOS either, so my preferences clearly don't track the broader market. It's also quite likely that their customers would notice the missing features if their phones were upgraded to a touchwiz-less ICS. And it seems quite likely that a series of class-action lawsuits would follow shortly afterwards.

    I agree with you that there is no technical reason the Galaxy S can't run stock ICS Android - there was an existence proof of that shortly after AOSP was updated with the ICS source. But stock Android is not the OS that Samsung sold their customers with those phones, they sold them Touchwiz.

    Yes, this sort of gimcrackery is a major reason for the fragmentation in Android. It was probably inevitable given how awful Android was in the early days. ICS is really the first version that competes with iOS and WP7 on aesthetics and consistency, and there's some chance that the vendors will gradually phase out their heavy-handed customization. HTC has announced that their newer versions of Sense will be much lighter, though they aren't phasing it out altogether, and Google has begun trying to discourage excessive customization as well.

    I'm glad that Nokia has so far resisted customization in the WP OS, because *that* is the sort of fragmentation that is dangerous - a fragmentation in *shipping* systems, not the natural fragmentation that occurs as older hardware is abandoned and stuck on old OS versions. Fragmenting the currently shipping systems causes long-term ongoing headaches because there will never be a single codebase the developer can target, never just a handful of systems to test on. Fragmentation caused by obsolescence is fairly easy to manage, if a developer is concerned about maximum market share he can write his code for the API's that came out one or two versions back.

    I'm curious how the low-cost Tango handsets will be handled when WP8 comes out, if they'll be upgraded to some flavor of WP8 or if they'll be stuck on a separate WP7 track. We'll see. At one time Windows NT ran well on machines with 4MB RAM and 20MB hard drives, so theoretically they can get WP8 pared down to where 256MB machines can run it.
    Last edited by mparker; 03-24-2012 at 08:27 AM.
    03-24-2012 08:15 AM
  3. Seketh's Avatar
    How is that a logic fail? I've said nothing about WP7 apps not running in WP8; I'm talking about old WP7 hardware running WP8. Try running Windows 8 on an 64MB Pentium 3 with a 20GB hard drive, and see how far you get.
    Your logic fails yet again, Windows 8 actually runs on 64MB!

    Windows 8 Runs on 64MB and 128 MB RAM | Windows 8 Beta

    1G WP7 handsets have 512MB, the same as 2G WP7. System requirements are definitely not an argument against the Apollo update on 1G handsets.

    Of all the WP7.x handsets, the Lumia 900 is the one I most expect to see Apollo in something resembling its full glory. But that's because WP8 was farther along in while the 900 was being developed, and because Nokia has a closer relationship with Microsoft than HTC or Samsung. They should have known exactly what would be needed for Apollo while they were developing the 900. If it can't run WP8 and run it well then people have a reason to scream bloody murder.
    And yet there is no hardware differentiation from the Lumia 900 to the other handsets, it still runs the same Snapdragon chipset.

    If other handsets have exactly the same chipset, why wouldn't they be able to run Apollo? And if Windows 8 can run on 64MB, why wouldn't Apollo run on the 256MB of Tango handsets?


    Yeah? Why does my Focus still have the disappearing keyboard problem then? If AT&T decides they'd rather not approve WP8 for those gen 1 devices, that they'd rather sell those customers a new 2-yr contract and a shiny new Lumia 1000 or Galaxy Focus or whatever, then those Gen 1 machines will never run WP8. And if AT&T/Verizon/Sprint have already told Microsoft that they will not be upgrading those old handsets then why would Microsoft even bother working on it? If AT&T won't push out the important bug fixes that Microsoft has released these last 6 months, why do you think they'd push out something as major and as revenue-reducing as WP8.

    You claim that the carriers are "contractually obligated to release major updates". I'll believe that when I see the contracts. There's always escape clauses and time limits and weasel words.
    As you said, carriers are obligated to release major updates, and AT&T just decided to skip the hotfix. It's revolting, but that's just AT&T being a crappy carrier.

    My personal opinion is that Microsoft compromised the hotfixes to guarantee that carriers like AT&T would release major updates, it makes perfect sense.
    Last edited by Seketh; 03-24-2012 at 11:25 AM.
    03-24-2012 11:18 AM
  4. XboxOmac's Avatar
    WP8 is simply more features than WP7.5. That's all. A major release for Windows Phone pretty much does not redefine the core OS. That's why I expect all phones to be updated. It's another Mango. With features that did not appear in Mango..

    Posted from my Samsung Focus Windows Phone.
    03-24-2012 11:26 AM
  5. canesfan625's Avatar
    WP8 is simply more features than WP7.5. That's all. A major release for Windows Phone pretty much does not redefine the core OS. That's why I expect all phones to be updated. It's another Mango. With features that did not appear in Mango..

    Posted from my Samsung Focus Windows Phone.
    not sure if serious...
    03-24-2012 12:52 PM
  6. N8ter's Avatar
    Nope, it is not really a problem for a developer if there are multiple versions of an OS out there, as long as he can be assured that there are a limited number of them, and those older versions will disappear over some reasonable time frame. This can't happen if manufacturers and carriers keep selling obsolete versions to new customers.

    Nobody ever whines about Windows being fragmented, at least not since XP replaced Windows ME. Even though there are lots of XP systems out there, there aren't any new XP systems being sold anymore, so nowadays it's possible for a developer to simply ignore the existence of XP and target the Vista APIs.

    Android is in the situation that Windows would be in if Dell and Gateway were still selling Windows 95 systems. Except worse, because the handset manufacturers and carriers insist on doing their own versions of the OS with their own bugs and compatibility issues.

    Hypothetically, if no Android handset were ever upgraded, but each new handset sold came with the latest version of Android, then although there would be fragmentation it would be very managable; by now nearly all handsets still under contract would be running Gingerbread, and new development projects could target Ice Cream Sandwich without a second's hesitation.

    If Apollo doesn't come to the older WP7 devices then yes there will be fragmentation. But that fragmentation will exist *anyway*, unless you believe that WP8 will be coming to these little 256MB Tango devices as well. It'll be interesting to see what happens to Tango after WP8 comes out. I suspect we're heading to a fragmented WP world whether we like it or not.
    You're wrong about xp. It's marketshare is still massive especially for business applications abandoning it can be suicide even now. That can work for some apps. Ie photoshop users are less likely to be using legacy windows versions. But for stuff like general office apps and even games in many instances you cannot in good faith drop xp support. Too many people still run it.


    Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk
    canesfan625 likes this.
    03-24-2012 09:17 PM
  7. mparker's Avatar
    Your logic fails yet again, Windows 8 actually runs on 64MB!

    Windows 8 Runs on 64MB and 128 MB RAM | Windows 8 Beta
    I don't think you actually read the article. It took 10 minutes to boot, and it's paging itself senseless and is completely unusable. An original XP or W2K system would be running just fine in that environment. Even at 128MB while it boots up ok without thrashing, it won't run any apps.

    It does give some hope that a system like this might be able to run an app in 256MB of RAM. He's doing this in a desktop X86 system, running in a VM, so these results aren't directly applicable to ARM on physical hardware. But it does give me hope that 512MB will be enough RAM.

    1G WP7 handsets have 512MB, the same as 2G WP7. System requirements are definitely not an argument against the Apollo update on 1G handsets.
    They also have a much weaker GPU and slower clock speed. Even if the OS installs it may run poorly. We really don't know yet. And this is all assuming that the carriers and manufacturers will approve the Apollo update for those old handsets.


    And yet there is no hardware differentiation from the Lumia 900 to the other handsets, it still runs the same Snapdragon chipset.

    If other handsets have exactly the same chipset, why wouldn't they be able to run Apollo? And if Windows 8 can run on 64MB, why wouldn't Apollo run on the 256MB of Tango handsets?
    According to that article, it *boots* in 64MB and only "runs" for the smallest possible value of "run". Even at 128MB it can't run any apps. And this is a desktop-level X86 system, running in a VM, these results aren't directly applicable to Win8 on an ARM SoC.

    ...carriers are obligated to release major updates...
    I'm a skeptic. I'll believe that when I see the contract, including where it attresses things like what "major update" means, what exactly constitutes a "release", how long are they obligated to update a given handset, how long can they delay it "testing", what testing criteria can they use to fail an update, etc.
    03-26-2012 08:31 AM
  8. mparker's Avatar
    You're wrong about xp. It's marketshare is still massive especially for business applications abandoning it can be suicide even now. That can work for some apps. Ie photoshop users are less likely to be using legacy windows versions. But for stuff like general office apps and even games in many instances you cannot in good faith drop xp support. Too many people still run it.
    Yes it's installed base is still large, but it is shrinking fast. The software I work on is used by large corporations; most of our customers have already gone to Win 7, the rest will be there by end of Q2. We are still supporting the XP versions of our software, but new development efforts and the next major releases of our existing software products are all targeting Win 7 for the desktop and iOS for tablets and phones.
    03-26-2012 08:40 AM
  9. canesfan625's Avatar
    Mparker, you really have to step back and enjoy both the irony and the humor of the situation. You have Spock over here preaching about logic based on the recital of articles and lack of understanding of basic concepts. I've seen windows XP run on a 486dx before. So your logic is fail because just because we can we should or something.

    I can see how clock speeds for CPU and maybe ram could be an issue but i don't see why gpu will matter. have I missed some new eye candy at the core? (not counting upcoming games) A friend once showed me a site that had the update details. I could swore it was actually somewhere on channel 9 or elsewhere on MSDN. I'll see if I can dig it up. Apollo does fall under the mandate though unless there has been a change


    -edit- I guess im kinda thinking that Apollo with be to 1st gen/current mid range phones what tango is to low end. It will work and be an efficient daily driver but some things will have a tango like upgrade message.
    Last edited by Canesfan625; 03-26-2012 at 10:32 AM.
    03-26-2012 09:41 AM
  10. Seketh's Avatar
    I don't think you actually read the article. It took 10 minutes to boot, and it's paging itself senseless and is completely unusable. An original XP or W2K system would be running just fine in that environment. Even at 128MB while it boots up ok without thrashing, it won't run any apps.
    I read the article. You simply stated that it wouldn't run, but it does. It might take 10 minutes, but it does run, and 64MB is way below minimum system requirements. That is just an example that even Windows 8, can indeed run on 64mb of ram, even if most stuff doesn't work.

    I might even add that Windows 8 is not optimized to run specific hardware, and Apollo is, so why wouldn't it run on 256MB?

    Also, Apollo won't be exactly the same as Windows 8, it won't require as many system resources.

    They also have a much weaker GPU and slower clock speed. Even if the OS installs it may run poorly. We really don't know yet. And this is all assuming that the carriers and manufacturers will approve the Apollo update for those old handsets.
    The weaker chipset shouldn't be of concern, the difference is really not that great.

    The carriers and manufacturers are something we should be worried about, yes, but I believe that Microsoft had the Windows 8 upgrade planned all along on the 1G and 2G handsets roadmap.


    -edit- I guess im kinda thinking that Apollo with be to 1st gen/current mid range phones what tango is to low end. It will work and be an efficient daily driver but some things will have a tango like upgrade message.
    Exactly, that's what should be expected. 1G and 2G handsets won't run the same things as the dual-core Apollo handsets, so we'll probably have some limitations, which is normal.

    And that is yet another argument in favor of Apollo coming to all existing handsets.
    03-26-2012 11:17 AM
  11. Old_Cus's Avatar
    Are we still talking about this? Wow this might become the longest running thread on this forum. Maybe it will stay active until the actual release of Apollo! :)
    03-26-2012 12:58 PM
  12. canesfan625's Avatar
    I read the article. You simply stated that it wouldn't run, but it does. It might take 10 minutes, but it does run, and 64MB is way below minimum system requirements. That is just an example that even Windows 8, can indeed run on 64mb of ram, even if most stuff doesn't work.

    I might even add that Windows 8 is not optimized to run specific hardware, and Apollo is, so why wouldn't it run on 256MB?
    Because its not just about if the bare OS can run? Its a moot point if I can turn my phone on and thats it.
    03-26-2012 03:54 PM
  13. Seketh's Avatar
    Because its not just about if the bare OS can run? Its a moot point if I can turn my phone on and thats it.
    Of course it's not just about if the OS can barely run on the system, but the original argument is that it wouldn't run, and the fact is that it indeed does run on a system way below required system specs.

    And it is relevant for my original argument. If Windows 8 can still run (even if nothing really works) on 64MB, Apollo will definitely run on 256MB with the required optimizations, although with the obvious limitations we already discussed.
    03-26-2012 07:00 PM
  14. canesfan625's Avatar
    Of course it's not just about if the OS can barely run on the system, but the original argument is that it wouldn't run, and the fact is that it indeed does run on a system way below required system specs.

    And it is relevant for my original argument. If Windows 8 can still run (even if nothing really works) on 64MB, Apollo will definitely run on 256MB with the required optimizations, although with the obvious limitations we already discussed.
    Can't quite say that. X86 ≠ ARM SoC. There is a significant difference in speed even at the same clock speeds which is in part why it was mentioned earlier that its no directly applicable.
    Last edited by Canesfan625; 03-26-2012 at 09:24 PM.
    03-26-2012 08:18 PM
  15. Seketh's Avatar
    Can't quite say that. X86 ≠ ARM SoC. There is a significant difference in speed even at the same clock speeds which is in part why it was mentioned earlier that its no directly applicable.
    Truth be told, we still have no idea what kind of performance we can expect from ARM running Windows 8.

    But I'm 100% certain of one thing in Windows Phone 8: It will run as fast, or faster, than Windows Phone 7.
    03-26-2012 09:48 PM
  16. N8ter's Avatar
    Windows 8 boots on 64MB. It doesn't run on that. Stability and performance is so bad that no one would think of running it on that. Full Desktop Linux distros can also be booted on very low RAM amounts but that doesn't make them usable.

    2k needs at least 128 MB RAM to be usable as a desktop system, and even then you'd want at least 256 or you run into Swapping/Virtual Memory/Performance issues when loading larger apps, which these days also includes web browsers.

    XP needs at least 256 RAM to be usable as a desktop system. On 128 you will barely be able to run any app without tons of thrashing and even at 256 you can't reliably multi task any apps of decent size (that includes web browsers, which can take up over 100MB RAM with a few tabs open). You get tons of Yellow Virtual Memory warnings in your system tray and you have to reboot your system a lot more often than someone with 512 RAM.

    Part of the Vista Capable/Premium Certification was to stop OEMs from shipping underspecced machines with the latest OS, because a lot of XP machines were shipped with 256 MB RAM and that ran fine until you intalled a few apps and started running multiple apps concurrently, then the experience was terrible. But they fudged that up as well :-(

    I used to run older desktops as test machines. When 2k released my PC had 320 MB RAM, though, so I never had "RAM issues." It was a gaming rig, though.

    Fitting an OS (or any software) in smaller RAM footprints isn't always due to "optimizations" because I doubt microsoft is rewriting so much code to the point that the base RAM footprint of the OS has shrunk so much, especially going from WP7.5 to WP8. It's not a full Win8 port to phone... Sometimes it's due to trimming, as in trimming features/drivers/etc. to make the software perform/function adequately in the lower spec. That's what they're going to do with Apollo if they put them on 1gen devices. Those devices won't need drivers for things like FFC or even the built-in software code to deal with it because they don't have it, same for stuff like Gyroscope (which they're also missing), 1080p Encoding, NFC, etc. All of that can be ripped out to make the OS fit in a smaller RAM foot print and perform better in the lower spec.
    03-27-2012 12:59 AM
  17. canesfan625's Avatar
    There is a photo from an early WOA build running on the ASUS E600. It's eating up most of its RAM but that's running the full desktop.
    03-27-2012 06:40 AM
  18. DanielCeleste's Avatar
    It only makes sense considering newer devices with Only 256mb of RAM are coming out soon, compared to 512mb of RAM on 1G devices.
    04-15-2012 05:19 PM
93 ... 234

Tags for this Thread

LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD