The Windows 10 April 2018 update has arrived! Get the new Dell XPS 15, starting at $999.99
04-22-2012 08:56 AM
39 12
tools
  1. trandz's Avatar
    If Microsoft deems it necessary to not update us due to lower hardware it would be for good reason. I'm sure Nokia will out one of the first awesome wp8 phones which would to me be worth the off contract buy out to experience wp8 the way it's meant
    04-18-2012 04:28 PM
  2. AzD's Avatar
    I'm sure there are some people who feel the same way, but not everyone can or will drop $500+ on a phone. And don't forget, Win 8 tablets will be coming out around the same time, and will likely cost about the same as an unsubsidized Apollo phone. Given a choice, I will buy a Win 8 tablet before I pay full retail for a smartphone. That's just me though.
    04-18-2012 04:35 PM
  3. trandz's Avatar
    I guess. However for now lets enjoy the great wp7 since who and who isn't getting Apollo is a guessing game until ms themselves layout everything to us.
    04-18-2012 04:56 PM
  4. alex6272's Avatar
    Mango is great and though some older phones may not see Apollo (at least maybe not in it's full glory), I highly doubt MS will not give us new features in future updates. Everything is mere speculation at the moment and this speculation is getting far too much attention.
    04-18-2012 05:29 PM
  5. N8ter's Avatar
    If Microsoft deems it necessary to not update us due to lower hardware it would be for good reason. I'm sure Nokia will out one of the first awesome wp8 phones which would to me be worth the off contract buy out to experience wp8 the way it's meant
    iPhone 3GS got iOS 5 so there's no excuse for them not putting Apollo on Launch Handsets. It will be somewhat embarassing when you put it all into context and with the new high end phones coming out it can drive some people away (next iPhone, Galaxy S 3, etc.).

    Also, if you're gonna have to upgrade for a software update then there's really no reason not to get an Android phone with better hardware and a more feature-filled now aesthetically pleasing OS on it.

    There's nothing good about that. One of the biggest selling points for WP7 for early adopters was the alleged faster update turnaround (turned out to be not the case) and not having to "upgrade to update," which was the percieved (real or not) policy for Android at that time (especially amidst all the FroYo update madness that was going on back then).

    Additionally, there are 3 year contracts in some countries so people who bought launch devices cheap less than a year ago will be stuck with them and an old OS version for potentially 1+ years due to contract terms and ETF fees. Nevermind people always start looking at alternatives when they feel like they are being forced to upgrade to update their devices.

    Blackberry (especially Storm/Storm 2) users did that. Android users do it, and even older iPhone users did it when their old iPhones got dropped. Supporting the 3GS was a brilliant move on Apple's part. Microsoft would be well to emulate that in Windows Phone, since at least that part hasn't been proven yet.

    They don't have the excuses Android OEMs have IRT dropping support for devices like that.
    04-18-2012 06:46 PM
  6. jimski's Avatar
    I'm sure there are some people who feel the same way, but not everyone can or will drop $500+ on a phone. And don't forget, Win 8 tablets will be coming out around the same time, and will likely cost about the same as an unsubsidized Apollo phone. Given a choice, I will buy a Win 8 tablet before I pay full retail for a smartphone. That's just me though.
    Same here. And should WP8 not be backward compatible, I will need written assurances that WP9 (and10) will be backward compatible to WP8 before I consider a purchase. But with that said, I don't need dial core, more stuff squeezed inn my screen, or another way for cyber thieves to steal my money. My L900 is just about right. Now if WP8 has a battery that lasts a week, different tune.

    Sent from my Lumia 900 using Board Express
    04-18-2012 07:07 PM
  7. mparker's Avatar
    iPhone 3GS got iOS 5 so there's no excuse for them not putting Apollo on Launch Handsets.
    How many WM 6.5 devices got WP7? If WP8 goes to the Win8 kernel as rumored then this is a much bigger change than the switch from WM6.5 to WP7. If WP8 sticks with the WinCE kernel then the current devices should get WP8. But a kernel change is a biggie.
    04-18-2012 07:45 PM
  8. Kredrian's Avatar
    I am more concerned about user experience. I do not care if I get an update if it only makes my phone slow to a crawl (I am looking at you Iphone 3G). As long as the updates keep the devices zipping along, I will be co ntent.
    cckgz4, Big Supes and jbjtkbw007 like this.
    04-18-2012 07:55 PM
  9. mprice86's Avatar
    How many WM 6.5 devices got WP7? If WP8 goes to the Win8 kernel as rumored then this is a much bigger change than the switch from WM6.5 to WP7. If WP8 sticks with the WinCE kernel then the current devices should get WP8. But a kernel change is a biggie.
    A kernel change is a big deal yes, but seriously? A company as famed for legacy hardware support as Microsoft can't produce drivers for the very limited number of different components currently used by Windows Phones?

    Minimum specs for Windows 8 Consumer Preview are 1ghz processor and 1gb RAM. Obviously Windows Phone 8 is not going to be full Windows, or anything remotely close to it; for a start it has a 16gb footprint. If what we currently have with WP7 can run smoothly on 256mb of RAM, then they can make anything they come up with for WP8 run on 512mb.

    I know we're all expecting or hoping for big additions and changes to the OS with Apollo, but in reality the core of the OS (live tiles, transition animations and typography) is not going to become any more intensive to run unless there's a massive balls up somewhere.
    cckgz4 likes this.
    04-18-2012 08:03 PM
  10. mparker's Avatar
    A kernel change is a big deal yes, but seriously? A company as famed for legacy hardware support as Microsoft can't produce drivers for the very limited number of different components currently used by Windows Phones?
    You notice the HD2 didn't get WP7. Whether it's because they didn't get the necessary help from the manufacturer, or because they had better things to do, I don't know. But Microsoft had the opportunity and decided to pass.

    As for "very limited number of different components" - we don't know that. There were a fairly small number of named devices, but there were four major variants of the Focus that we know of. Who knows how many variants of the Quantum, Focus S, etc there were that we never heard about because they didn't have major NoDo upgrade snafus. There may have been two variants of the Lumia 900 shipped just in the first batch (given that the communications bug only affected a subset of the units). And there was a report earlier that are two different versions of the L700 and L800 bootloaders coming out of the factory, maybe coincidental, maybe due to slightly different hardware and Nokia didn't get them synced up. We just don't know.
    04-18-2012 08:16 PM
  11. N8ter's Avatar
    How many WM 6.5 devices got WP7? If WP8 goes to the Win8 kernel as rumored then this is a much bigger change than the switch from WM6.5 to WP7. If WP8 sticks with the WinCE kernel then the current devices should get WP8. But a kernel change is a biggie.
    Microsoft intentionally broke compatibility with Windows Mobile for several reasons:

    a. Chasis requirements. Supporting old devices would make them have to put in legacy code and keep that code in the codebase for upwards of 1-2 years because even those people with old HD2s would be crying for updates.

    Additionally, there were a ton of WM QWERTY and Resistive Touch Screen devices and Microsoft didn't want to build support for that into WP7.

    2. Minimum Specs, outside of the HD2, most Windows Mobile phones had Specs worse than Blackberry Bolds back then (think Bold 9780) and wouldn't be able to support the OS at any decent performance level.

    3. App compatibility. Why would a Windows Mobile user update to WP7 when they use it for work and none of the WM apps they use on that device work properly. Also, WP7 has terrible Exchange Policy support compared to WM and they couldn't in good conscious make devices unable to connect to Corporate Exchange servers after an OS "upgrade."

    Kernel Changes aren't a big problem. You need drivers for the hardware, that is all. As long as the device is speced well enough to run the OS (kernel) it will run. It's not a big deal.

    It's not a bigger switch than from Windows Mobile to Windows Phone. The entire development model and user interface change, and core features were added or gutted out going from WM to WP7. The OS had a completely different focus (went from buit for businesses to built for Facebookers). Mango to Apollo isn't even close to being on that level of change. Put it all into perspective and going from Windows Mobile to WP7 is like going from Windows 7 to Windows 8. Going from Mango to Apollo will be more like going from Vista to Windows 7.

    Lastly, they simply want to disassociate themselves from Windows Mobile. Windows Mobile equates to terrible in the minds of many. That's why so many WP7 fans get so angry when people call it Windows Mobile 7.
    Last edited by N8ter; 04-19-2012 at 12:59 AM.
    linooliveira likes this.
    04-19-2012 12:50 AM
  12. mparker's Avatar
    Microsoft intentionally broke compatibility with Windows Mobile for several reasons:

    a. Chasis requirements. Supporting old devices would make them have to put in legacy code and keep that code in the codebase for upwards of 1-2 years because even those people with old HD2s would be crying for updates.
    This supports my belief that WP7 phones won't be updated to WP8...


    2. Minimum Specs, outside of the HD2, most Windows Mobile phones had Specs worse than Blackberry Bolds back then (think Bold 9780) and wouldn't be able to support the OS at any decent performance level.
    Again, this seems to support my position more than it does yours. All WP7 phones have specs worse than current Android, iPhones, and the minimum Win8 requirements. It seems plausible that they won't be able to run WP8 at any decent performance level.

    Kernel Changes aren't a big problem. You need drivers for the hardware, that is all. As long as the device is speced well enough to run the OS (kernel) it will run. It's not a big deal.
    It is a big deal if the companies that wrote the original drivers aren't interested in investing the time in developing new drivers. See Vista's history for an example of how well this works.

    It's not a bigger switch than from Windows Mobile to Windows Phone. The entire development model and user interface change, and core features were added or gutted out going from WM to WP7.
    It's not as big of a change from the user's perspective, but it is a huge change from the OS's perspective. Replace that antiquated kernel with Win 8 and you have to rewrite everything above it all the way to the silverlight layer. Doing that and writing new device drivers for legacy hardware and testing and debugging all of this so the legacy devices don't experience radio, battery, reliability, and performance issues is *not* a small task. And it's not like Microsoft doesn't have a ton of other things on their plate, like WP8 server, or WP8 on ARM, or WP8 on the desktop, the new Office for ARM, or even the new XBox - lest we forget, Dave Cutler (father of NT) went to the XBox division last year. And if WP8 is supposed to run WinRT apps then you've also got to shoehorn the WinRT software stack in next to the Silverlight stack, all in that same 512k space where you're also shoehorning in the new kernel and all the new features that WP8 is supposedly bringing to the table.

    I don't know that all this isn't doable. But Microsoft's resounding silence on this issue (and their quickness to yank that Spanish evangelist guy's leash) tells me they do *not* want people getting the idea that current handsets will be upgraded. Yet they're perfectly willing - eager even - to talk about the fact that current WP7 apps will run on WP8.
    04-19-2012 09:38 AM
  13. jmerrey's Avatar
    I would guess the Apollo update will be similar to the Tango update in that, certain features will be "unlocked" dependant on a specific hardware detection. For example, if Tango detects that you have less that 512mb of ram, then it restricts certain features. I would expect that Apollo would key on single core vs. dual core. If it detects single core, then certain features are restricted.

    By the way, this is completely a guess. Any I agree with the op, if my Lumia 900 can't be upgraded to Apollo, I would assume it's for a good reason and it won't upset me.
    04-19-2012 11:21 AM
  14. Wh0mpu5's Avatar
    I think your both right and wrong.

    I think we are both overlooking one thing , or assuming. WIN RT (windows 8 phone) Will be designed for ARM chipsets. SO going with that line of thinking the requirements are going to be less. So if win 8 for PC has a requirement of 1gb of ram , then i would think logically that 512mb would be a logical number for the ARM version of windows 8 for phones. Which technically means the current line of phones should have the ability to run windows phone 8.

    However that said , From a marketing point of view , if Microsoft doesn't realease apollo to the 2nd gen windows phone 7 devices ( IE: lumia 710/800/900) then they would be shooting themselves in the foot. However devices like the focus and HD7 probably would not be supported beyond tango. There is rhyme and reason to this . The samsung Focus and HD7 are older devices. Although very popular. MS will want those users to upgrade to the newer devices, either lumia line or new lines from the carriers.

    So rather than speculating based on PC requirements think smaller.

    If you sit and think about what you both said , your both right in your own way. There is no way MS and NOKIA would release a phone then release win8 7 months later and pretty much tell all 2nd gen Device owners to go screw themselves. I personally just got a lumia 900 - i love it , but if i get left out in the cold come apollo, i will leave wp7 and wp8 for good. It will leave a bad taste in my mouth.

    Now saying that if i was a focus or HD7 user , i would somewhat understand . I would be a older hardware user and a 1st gen device. There has to be a line drawn somewhere.


    If i were to use the example that a user used above .

    a HTC HD7 - Apollo = Win98SE - Win7

    a Lumia 900 - Apollo = Win7 - Win8

    Samsung Focus(s/Flash) - Apollo = WinXP - Apollo


    So the reason i used the hd7 as a older gen is because it did not have any new editions afterwards , where as the focus did. Even though i know the focus and hd7 were both 1st gen devices. Take that with a grain of salt.

    For those who are not in the technical industry , when you upgrade from any OS prior to Vista to win 7 you are forced to wipe the drive to install win7 . thereby eliminating any traces to the previous OS.
    Last edited by Wh0mpu5; 04-19-2012 at 01:37 PM. Reason: Error
    04-19-2012 01:37 PM
  15. Big Supes's Avatar
    Windows 8 could bring something entirely different, whilst current devices could be bundled with the low-end Tango family - which would mean they would still receive updates.
    04-19-2012 01:54 PM
  16. mparker's Avatar
    I think we are both overlooking one thing , or assuming. WIN RT (windows 8 phone) Will be designed for ARM chipsets. SO going with that line of thinking the requirements are going to be less. So if win 8 for PC has a requirement of 1gb of ram , then i would think logically that 512mb would be a logical number for the ARM version of windows 8 for phones. Which technically means the current line of phones should have the ability to run windows phone 8.
    I'm not overlooking it. I just don't really know how much overhead WP8 imposes vs WP7. There's a good chance that Win8 on ARM will need less memory than Win8 on the desktop, but its not guaranteed, much less obvious that Win8 on ARM will magically need the 512Mb that just happens to be on the current handsets. RISC CPUs tend to have larger programs than x86, and x86 programs can be optimized for code space instead of speed to reduce their size even further (ARM can too, but they usually already are compiled for space, whereas x86 apps are usually compiled for speed). Unless I've missed some recent announcement from Microsoft there's no reason to assume that it'll run well on 512MB, much less that it'll run comparably to WP7 on 512MB. If WP8 requires only 100MB more RAM than WP7 does, then it could run "ok" in the current 512MB. Keep in mind that if WP8 does support WinRT then it will also have to support the legacy Silverlight stack right next to it in memory, so that will bloat the memory requirements a bit. Subtract 100Mb because of the OS and you couldn't keep as many processes in memory, maybe only 3 or 4. The system will need more frequent garbage collections. If the WP8 kernel is a bit slower than the WinCE kernel that could also take a toll (could be code inefficiency, could be that it needs the CPU to run in a different mode, could be that it causes more interrupts, could be lots of things). Keep in mind that I'm not comparing Win8 desktop vs Win8 ARM here, I'm comparing WinCE vs Win8 ARM, these are apples and oranges and we don't really know how they compare in terms of memory consumption, except that WinCE has been optimized for memory consumption for decades, whereas Win8 ARM has only been optimized for it for a few years.

    None of these concerns are guaranteed to occur. But it makes no sense to handwave them away as minor or nonexistent concerns, because Microsoft can't simply handwave them away. One way or another they must deal with these issues, and if they can't resolve them adequately then they face the awkward prospect of cutting features, slipping the schedule, or cutting legacy support. None of these are pleasant prospects, but if it comes to that we shouldn't be surprised if microsoft prioritizes making the schedule with the feature set they need to be competitive over supporting a few million transitional devices.
    Last edited by mparker; 04-19-2012 at 02:01 PM.
    04-19-2012 01:56 PM
  17. Wh0mpu5's Avatar
    I see where your coming from , and i tend to agree there are too many unknown variables. However if they can have a Emulation if the Consumer preview operating on a Ipad, i would think that the requirements are a bit lower. ( Get the app for your Win8 Metro Testbed ) Again not apples and apples , but based off what we do know. it would make sense that 1st gen devices may be officially cut off after tango , but 2nd gen like the lumia line would be included in a apollo update. once again based off the limited info we have currently.

    and again marketing 101 , every single lumia device purchased since the lumia 710 came out (provided your on contract) will not be able to upgrade until after apollo comes out and if your in Canada and signed a 3 yr term for the lumia 900 , you won't be able to upgrade for another 3 years. so saying that , why screw the wp7 revitalization adopters. My thought is they won't.

    And again my 2 cents.
    04-19-2012 02:35 PM
  18. eric12341's Avatar
    iPhone 3GS got iOS 5 so there's no excuse for them not putting Apollo on Launch Handsets. It will be somewhat embarassing when you put it all into context and with the new high end phones coming out it can drive some people away (next iPhone, Galaxy S 3, etc.).

    Also, if you're gonna have to upgrade for a software update then there's really no reason not to get an Android phone with better hardware and a more feature-filled now aesthetically pleasing OS on it.

    There's nothing good about that. One of the biggest selling points for WP7 for early adopters was the alleged faster update turnaround (turned out to be not the case) and not having to "upgrade to update," which was the percieved (real or not) policy for Android at that time (especially amidst all the FroYo update madness that was going on back then).

    Additionally, there are 3 year contracts in some countries so people who bought launch devices cheap less than a year ago will be stuck with them and an old OS version for potentially 1+ years due to contract terms and ETF fees. Nevermind people always start looking at alternatives when they feel like they are being forced to upgrade to update their devices.

    Blackberry (especially Storm/Storm 2) users did that. Android users do it, and even older iPhone users did it when their old iPhones got dropped. Supporting the 3GS was a brilliant move on Apple's part. Microsoft would be well to emulate that in Windows Phone, since at least that part hasn't been proven yet.

    They don't have the excuses Android OEMs have IRT dropping support for devices like that.
    you're forgetting one thing, when the iPhone 4S launched even the iPhone 4 users ponied up the cash for one,that's bound to be more expensive than a WP off contract would be, so this logic is failed. Also android ICS more aesthetically pleasing than WP? Don't know where you get this from either.
    04-19-2012 02:55 PM
  19. mparker's Avatar
    Also android ICS more aesthetically pleasing than WP? Don't know where you get this from either.
    He said "a more feature-filled now aesthetically pleasing OS on it". I think what he was trying to say is ICS is more feature-filled than Mango (don't know that any of us would seriously disagree) and that ICS is aesthetically pleasing, which is of course only an opinion but it is a fairly widely-held opinion. I personally think Mango is more attractive, but there's no doubt that ICS is much more attractive and pleasant to use than Froyo or Gingerbread, and Apple and Microsoft should be concerned about Jellybean.
    04-19-2012 03:07 PM
  20. Wh0mpu5's Avatar
    you're forgetting one thing, when the iPhone 4S launched even the iPhone 4 users ponied up the cash for one,that's bound to be more expensive than a WP off contract would be, so this logic is failed. Also android ICS more aesthetically pleasing than WP? Don't know where you get this from either.

    Hold on a second here. Iphone 4 and Iphone 4s can not even come close to context here.

    Iphone 4 was released june 2010 , Iphone 4s was released october 2011 . People ponied up for a 4s because its a apple product. Remember seeing the articles about how apple was closer to a religious effect than a product line. WP7 has no where NEAR the marketing power apple had with the iphone 4 and 4s. Although i agree that spec wise there is no real technical reason for all wp7 devices to get apollo , but as pointed out above there are marketing and logical reasons why not all or any will get apollo.
    04-19-2012 03:17 PM
  21. AzD's Avatar
    Windows 8 could bring something entirely different, whilst current devices could be bundled with the low-end Tango family - which would mean they would still receive updates.
    Could be but the fragmentation and confusion would be a serious negative effect from such a situation.
    04-19-2012 03:29 PM
  22. socialcarpet's Avatar
    Windows 8 could bring something entirely different, whilst current devices could be bundled with the low-end Tango family - which would mean they would still receive updates.
    Agreed. This would be the most sensible thing for Microsoft to do if making Apollo retro compatible with all the current phones isn't practical.
    04-19-2012 04:50 PM
  23. socialcarpet's Avatar
    Could be but the fragmentation and confusion would be a serious negative effect from such a situation.
    A two tiered Windows Phone OS situation wouldn't be ideal, but it wouldn't be anywhere near as fragmented as Android with 4+ versions of the OS out there actually SHIPPING on NEW devices simultaneously, plus all of the OEM and carrier bloatware and customizations keeping people from getting even incremental OS updates.

    A lower tier of phones all on Tango and a new class of phones all on Apollo doesn't even come close to the cluster*ck that is Android. Both could easily be maintained simultaneously for a while. You could have most apps work on both, but you might have special functions only enabled on Apollo devices, or you may have newer apps or high end games that are Apollo only.

    Again, it might not be the ideal scenario that's going to make everyone happy, but it would certainly be something that I think no reasonable person would decry if they really understood why certain compromises might have to be made.
    04-19-2012 05:12 PM
  24. N8ter's Avatar
    This supports my belief that WP7 phones won't be updated to WP8...
    No it doesn't. The chasis requirements for WP8 are the same as WP7 except they are adding more chasis with Tango and Apollo for different form-factors.

    Again, this seems to support my position more than it does yours. All WP7 phones have specs worse than current Android, iPhones, and the minimum Win8 requirements. It seems plausible that they won't be able to run WP8 at any decent performance level.
    That depends on the system requirments for Apollo, which none of us know so how can that support your or my argument. We don't know what the minimum requirements are. Speculation is not fact.

    It is a big deal if the companies that wrote the original drivers aren't interested in investing the time in developing new drivers. See Vista's history for an example of how well this works.
    And it's only a big deal if the driver model for WP8 is radically changed going from WP7. OEMs have contracts with component vendors and you're assumiong literally all the hardware is getting switched out, and that the same OEMs won't be using teh same components in lower end devices to keep their manufacturing and POS cost down. I'd say you're dead wrong. Driver support won't be an issue.

    It's not as big of a change from the user's perspective, but it is a huge change from the OS's perspective. Replace that antiquated kernel with Win 8 and you have to rewrite everything above it all the way to the silverlight layer. Doing that and writing new device drivers for legacy hardware and testing and debugging all of this so the legacy devices don't experience radio, battery, reliability, and performance issues is *not* a small task. And it's not like Microsoft doesn't have a ton of other things on their plate, like WP8 server, or WP8 on ARM, or WP8 on the desktop, the new Office for ARM, or even the new XBox - lest we forget, Dave Cutler (father of NT) went to the XBox division last year. And if WP8 is supposed to run WinRT apps then you've also got to shoehorn the WinRT software stack in next to the Silverlight stack, all in that same 512k space where you're also shoehorning in the new kernel and all the new features that WP8 is supposedly bringing to the table.
    See above. Only thing that matters is the driver model and the system requirmenents. And it's 512MB space not 512k space. WP8 will fit in that easily and I wouldn't be suprised if the WP8 phones end up shipping with 512 MB ROMs as well. Skinned Android is pretty big and it fits in 512MB ROM. WP7 should easily fit in there.

    I don't know that all this isn't doable. But Microsoft's resounding silence on this issue (and their quickness to yank that Spanish evangelist guy's leash) tells me they do *not* want people getting the idea that current handsets will be upgraded. Yet they're perfectly willing - eager even - to talk about the fact that current WP7 apps will run on WP8.
    They aren't obligated to tell anyone anything, but I thought they said they would be?

    People need to be harping on Manufacturers, not Microsoft. Microsoft doesn't make them put 512 MB ROMs in the devices, they choose that, and it's just a minimum requirement. The HD2 for T-Mo had a 1GB ROM, for example. HD2/7 for T-Mo have 576 MB RAM (the 512 you think you have is actually less cause of partitioned RAM for the GPU, so HTC adds extra in some of their phones to offset that a bit). There are a lot of issues that affect upgradeability of handsets that have nothing to do with Microsoft's decisions (other than setting the minimum requirements) and everything to do with the OEMs and Carriers efforts to minimize costs and maximize profits (duh...).
    04-20-2012 03:40 AM
  25. N8ter's Avatar
    He said "a more feature-filled now aesthetically pleasing OS on it". I think what he was trying to say is ICS is more feature-filled than Mango (don't know that any of us would seriously disagree) and that ICS is aesthetically pleasing, which is of course only an opinion but it is a fairly widely-held opinion. I personally think Mango is more attractive, but there's no doubt that ICS is much more attractive and pleasant to use than Froyo or Gingerbread, and Apple and Microsoft should be concerned about Jellybean.
    Eric loves to twist words. His reading comprehension is terrible.
    04-20-2012 03:42 AM
39 12
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD