Microsoft Admit Failure On Mobile Phones
-
We have one HoloLens so far but plan on getting more when our development teams finishes with them.
-
I like Nadella alot. He was definitely handed a mess. I think Microsoft would be much better off to drop the mobile platform. It is becoming obvious that Windows will never be a contender for mobile devices.
-
@IRJ said in Microsoft Admit Failure On Mobile Phones:
I like Nadella alot. He was definitely handed a mess. I think Microsoft would be much better off to drop the mobile platform. It is becoming obvious that Windows will never be a contender for mobile devices.
Nadella knows what he is doing. Improving products, making people actually like the company.
-
Just remember that they admitted "defeat" in the hardware segment, but they are still clearly focused on Windows 10 Mobile as part of the Windows 10 ecosystem, as it is a very important part of their future vision, including 3-in-1 devices. We can see this commitment and focus as we continue to see new builds rolling out to Windows Insiders almost every week. And Microsoft is still committed to supporting all existing devices, while also giving their OEM partners a chance to enter and capture a larger portion of the market.
Even so, they have said they will not do away with their mobile hardware but manage to "keep a toe in" as they will need some of that technology in the near future. It would be difficult if they had to restart all over again, making new stacks and such. They also want to target more, at least initially, on the enterprise. As they do this, we are still enjoying some of what I call the "development overflow" here on the consumer side too.
So, with that in mind, quite a few of us are eagerly awaiting the slowly approaching launch of the Surface Phone, most likely occurring 1st quarter in 2017.
One other thing to chew on ... the newer chips being used in the latest Windows 10 Mobile devices beyond the Lumia 950's (e.g., HP Elite x3 and Alcatel Idol Pro S) is the Snapdragon 820. Now, if you did not know, these chips are capable of running 64-bit and there are some rumors floating around Microsoft-land, from reliable sources, that sometime in the near future, Windows 10 Mobile will shift to a 64-bit system, especially with the memory and hardware needs of successfully running Continuum. Are you starting to put together the puzzle pieces yet?
Just saying...
-
Windows Mobile isn't available in 64bit yet? I had no idea that they were lagging that far behind. Android and iOS have been 64bit for a while (Apple since 2013). As have Linux, BSD and others on those platforms.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Microsoft Admit Failure On Mobile Phones:
@IRJ said in Microsoft Admit Failure On Mobile Phones:
I like Nadella alot. He was definitely handed a mess. I think Microsoft would be much better off to drop the mobile platform. It is becoming obvious that Windows will never be a contender for mobile devices.
Nadella knows what he is doing. Improving products, making people actually like the company.
He makes me what an Surface Studio for no other reason than it looks cool!
Which by the way, I have a Surface Book and am thrilled with it...even for occasional gaming...
-
@scottalanmiller said in Microsoft Admit Failure On Mobile Phones:
Windows Mobile isn't available in 64bit yet? I had no idea that they were lagging that far behind. Android and iOS have been 64bit for a while (Apple since 2013). As have Linux, BSD and others on those platforms.
Unfortunately no, but Microsoft seems to be kicking things up a notch and making up for lots of lost time (thanks Balmer). They have not officially announced 64-bit Mobile, but with the near future processors of choice and the vision for 3-in-1's and such, it has to be on their list, especially if they want Continuum to work properly and if they want to pack more memory into their devices beyond 4 GBs. Quite a few of us think this has to be on their radar for sometime in 2017. We're just not sure if they will split into two flavors or force an upgrade to 64-bit. Time will tell!
-
@garak0410 said in Microsoft Admit Failure On Mobile Phones:
@scottalanmiller said in Microsoft Admit Failure On Mobile Phones:
@IRJ said in Microsoft Admit Failure On Mobile Phones:
I like Nadella alot. He was definitely handed a mess. I think Microsoft would be much better off to drop the mobile platform. It is becoming obvious that Windows will never be a contender for mobile devices.
Nadella knows what he is doing. Improving products, making people actually like the company.
He makes me what an Surface Studio for no other reason than it looks cool!
Which by the way, I have a Surface Book and am thrilled with it...even for occasional gaming...
Microsoft has made me feel dirty even thinking of owning a product with Surface in the name. It might look cool on videos, but I really mean it, I'd be embarrassed saying that I had one. I'm assuming based on their use of the term Surface to mean "bad hardware that never works that we push via crazy levels of marketing" that the Studio is total crap, too. That they are connecting it to the worthless Surface lines, I'm assuming that they are using that as a code for us to know that it's not to be taken seriously. I don't know what MS is thinking with their hardware lines, but it's hurting their software reputation heavily and I can't see a good reason for it.
-
@David.Scammell said in Microsoft Admit Failure On Mobile Phones:
@scottalanmiller said in Microsoft Admit Failure On Mobile Phones:
Windows Mobile isn't available in 64bit yet? I had no idea that they were lagging that far behind. Android and iOS have been 64bit for a while (Apple since 2013). As have Linux, BSD and others on those platforms.
Unfortunately no, but Microsoft seems to be kicking things up a notch and making up for lots of lost time (thanks Balmer). They have not officially announced 64-bit Mobile, but with the near future processors of choice and the vision for 3-in-1's and such, it has to be on their list, especially if they want Continuum to work properly and if they want to pack more memory into their devices beyond 4 GBs. Quite a few of us think this has to be on their radar for sometime in 2017. We're just not sure if they will split into two flavors or force an upgrade to 64-bit. Time will tell!
64bit is not required for more memory. If you remember the Windows Server world on Pentium III (32bit), we had a lot more than 4GB on 32bit long ago. The bit depth was never a memory barrier, that was purely a Windows desktop licensing limitation. No other major OS ever had that limitation and even Windows Server did not.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Microsoft Admit Failure On Mobile Phones:
@David.Scammell said in Microsoft Admit Failure On Mobile Phones:
@scottalanmiller said in Microsoft Admit Failure On Mobile Phones:
Windows Mobile isn't available in 64bit yet? I had no idea that they were lagging that far behind. Android and iOS have been 64bit for a while (Apple since 2013). As have Linux, BSD and others on those platforms.
Unfortunately no, but Microsoft seems to be kicking things up a notch and making up for lots of lost time (thanks Balmer). They have not officially announced 64-bit Mobile, but with the near future processors of choice and the vision for 3-in-1's and such, it has to be on their list, especially if they want Continuum to work properly and if they want to pack more memory into their devices beyond 4 GBs. Quite a few of us think this has to be on their radar for sometime in 2017. We're just not sure if they will split into two flavors or force an upgrade to 64-bit. Time will tell!
64bit is not required for more memory. If you remember the Windows Server world on Pentium III (32bit), we had a lot more than 4GB on 32bit long ago. The bit depth was never a memory barrier, that was purely a Windows desktop licensing limitation. No other major OS ever had that limitation and even Windows Server did not.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't a 32-bit processor use 32 bits to refer to the location of each byte of memory. 2^32 = 4.2 billion, which means a memory address that's 32 bits long can only refer to 4.2 billion unique locations or in our case, 4 GB. Therefore, adding more than 4GB of physical memory to a Windows box still doesn't change the fact that it's a 32-bit processor accessing a 32-bit memory space. Even when more than 4GB of memory is present, each process still has the normal 2GB virtual address space, and the kernel address space is still 2GB.
Here's some more info on Windows memory limits:
Memory Limits for Windows and Windows Server Releases (Windows) -
Personally, I don't see how Win10 Mobile doesn't take off.
I was a crazy Android fanboy. And before that, iPhone.
So last year I bought a Microsoft 950XL (lumia), which was my first experience with Win10 mobile... or any Win Mobile for that matter.
And there is no possible way I could EVER go back to Android or iOS now... I'm spoiled. I love every single thing about this phone and Win10 Mobile. It just flows so well. And believe me, I was a total die-hard Google and Android everything for personal use just under a year ago. Now I'm completely changed around to all thanks to Win10 Mobile and the 950 XL.
I feel like one of those fake success stories right now... but I'm serious.
It makes me think that all the haters of Win10 Mobile have never given it a real shot, and just jump on the anti-Win10 Mobile band wagon right away to fit in and feel good with their iPhone and Android buddies.
/endrant
-
@David.Scammell said in Microsoft Admit Failure On Mobile Phones:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't a 32-bit processor use 32 bits to refer to the location of each byte of memory.
No, it does not. The processor addresses what it is told to address. Virtual memory mapping allowed for memory much larger then 4GB long, long before the advent of 64bit processors. My last Pentium III system had 6GB for example.
In the IA32 world, which Windows used, PAE was introduced with the Pentium Pro in 1995 allowing 32bit processors to go to 64GB on Windows and potentially higher elsewhere. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension
Windows 2000 32bit did 32GB of RAM
Windows 2003 32bit did 64GB of RAM -
@David.Scammell said in Microsoft Admit Failure On Mobile Phones:
Therefore, adding more than 4GB of physical memory to a Windows box still doesn't change the fact that it's a 32-bit processor accessing a 32-bit memory space. Even when more than 4GB of memory is present, each process still has the normal 2GB virtual address space, and the kernel address space is still 2GB.
No one said that it wasn't a 32bit processor, only that 4GB is not the memory limit of a 32bit processor.
That Windows decided to have a memory limit per process is a Windows implementation decision, not a factor of the processor being 32bit.
-
@Tim_G said in Microsoft Admit Failure On Mobile Phones:
It makes me think that all the haters of Win10 Mobile have never given it a real shot, and just jump on the anti-Win10 Mobile band wagon right away to fit in and feel good with their iPhone and Android buddies.
Of course not, after WIndows Mobile 8 I'll never trust them on mobile again. That was so bad. Everything about it was bad. The interface, the apps, the way that things worked, the crap that they tried to state was impressive. Fool me once, and all that. Gave it an honest try and it was just garbage. And that was when it was doing "well" and people thought that it might take off. Now that it is dying and they are killing off support I'm even less inclined to try it.
I gave both Android and Windows Mobile a try for a long time. But in the end, I need a reliable device that works. Both failed to deliver that.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Microsoft Admit Failure On Mobile Phones:
@Tim_G said in Microsoft Admit Failure On Mobile Phones:
It makes me think that all the haters of Win10 Mobile have never given it a real shot, and just jump on the anti-Win10 Mobile band wagon right away to fit in and feel good with their iPhone and Android buddies.
Of course not, after WIndows Mobile 8 I'll never trust them on mobile again. That was so bad. Everything about it was bad. The interface, the apps, the way that things worked, the crap that they tried to state was impressive. Fool me once, and all that. Gave it an honest try and it was just garbage. And that was when it was doing "well" and people thought that it might take off. Now that it is dying and they are killing off support I'm even less inclined to try it.
I gave both Android and Windows Mobile a try for a long time. But in the end, I need a reliable device that works. Both failed to deliver that.
Hmm, I don't see any of that negative stuff with it right now. I never tried Windows Mobile 8, but I know it's great now (in Win10 Mobile). I'm not sure what would make anything else better. I have all the apps I need if that's still the thing everyone says.
-
@Tim_G said in Microsoft Admit Failure On Mobile Phones:
Hmm, I don't see any of that negative stuff with it right now. I never tried Windows Mobile 8, but I know it's great now (in Win10 Mobile). I'm not sure what would make anything else better. I have all the apps I need if that's still the thing everyone says.
Lacking apps was bad. Having a store that promoted malware when looking for apps was worse. It was like an even worse version of the Windows Store, if you can imagine something worse.
-
@David.Scammell said in Microsoft Admit Failure On Mobile Phones:
Just remember that they admitted "defeat" in the hardware segment, but they are still clearly focused on Windows 10 Mobile as part of the Windows 10 ecosystem, as it is a very important part of their future vision, including 3-in-1 devices. We can see this commitment and focus as we continue to see new builds rolling out to Windows Insiders almost every week. And Microsoft is still committed to supporting all existing devices, while also giving their OEM partners a chance to enter and capture a larger portion of the market.
Hardware is actually the easy part. The software is the real problem.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Microsoft Admit Failure On Mobile Phones:
@David.Scammell said in Microsoft Admit Failure On Mobile Phones:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't a 32-bit processor use 32 bits to refer to the location of each byte of memory.
No, it does not. The processor addresses what it is told to address. Virtual memory mapping allowed for memory much larger then 4GB long, long before the advent of 64bit processors. My last Pentium III system had 6GB for example.
In the IA32 world, which Windows used, PAE was introduced with the Pentium Pro in 1995 allowing 32bit processors to go to 64GB on Windows and potentially higher elsewhere. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension
Windows 2000 32bit did 32GB of RAM
Windows 2003 32bit did 64GB of RAMAh yes, /PAE ... systems with the proper chipset could boot with the /PAE switch, and then they could support up to 64GB physical memory. When a device was booted with the /PAE switch (via boot.ini), it would load a special version of the core kernel image with PAE support. In this case, a 32-bit process can "use" large amounts of memory via AWE (address windowing extension) functions. This means that they mapped views of the physical memory they allocated into their 2GB virtual address space. With that in mind, they essentially could still only use 2GB of memory at a time. According to Mark Russinovich, cofounder of Winternals, this was nothing more than an illusion or magic trick.
With that said ... I just read one of your other replies ... "No one said that it wasn't a 32bit processor, only that 4GB is not the memory limit of a 32bit processor. That Windows decided to have a memory limit per process is a Windows implementation decision, not a factor of the processor being 32bit."
Just hit me what you were saying, and yes, this was "working as designed," Microsoft was the magician pulling a slight of hand, and it appears you're saying they should have designed it better. Got it!
-
@Tim_G said in Microsoft Admit Failure On Mobile Phones:
Personally, I don't see how Win10 Mobile doesn't take off.
I was a crazy Android fanboy. And before that, iPhone.
So last year I bought a Microsoft 950XL (lumia), which was my first experience with Win10 mobile... or any Win Mobile for that matter.
And there is no possible way I could EVER go back to Android or iOS now... I'm spoiled. I love every single thing about this phone and Win10 Mobile. It just flows so well. And believe me, I was a total die-hard Google and Android everything for personal use just under a year ago. Now I'm completely changed around to all thanks to Win10 Mobile and the 950 XL.
I feel like one of those fake success stories right now... but I'm serious.
It makes me think that all the haters of Win10 Mobile have never given it a real shot, and just jump on the anti-Win10 Mobile band wagon right away to fit in and feel good with their iPhone and Android buddies.
/endrant
I did Windows Phone for 3 Years from the Lumia 920 to moving to my work account with the 928 and then Lumia ICON. I loved the experience and especially the cameras. When market share shrinkage and app gap started to occur, I was getting a little wary and aimed to return to Android. When it was finally confirmed that Verizon would not get the 950xl, I went back to Android with the Samsung Note 5 and then 7. I am currently on the PIXEL and in my opinion, this is the way to experience Android. Super fast, super stable. I think they kept hardware/software interaction in mind this time and this phone is so smooth.
I have a review copy of a 950xl and I keep it updated on the Windows Insider Fast Ring. And as much as I'd give it a try as a daily driver if it worked on Verizon, I do need "the apps."
-
@David.Scammell said in Microsoft Admit Failure On Mobile Phones:
Just hit me what you were saying, and yes, this was "working as designed," Microsoft was the magician pulling a slight of hand, and it appears you're saying they should have designed it better. Got it!
I didn't suggest that they should have designed it better. But Microsoft wasn't the magician here, really, it was Intel doing the hard work. Other operating systems were 64GB on 32bit across the board, like Linux. My desktops could do 64GB before Windows Server could. The per process limit of 2GB is for performance reasons, going above that would cause performance problems, so it is by design to have that limit to keep things fast. And how often do you need more than 2GB for a single process in the 32bit era? Not often. Even today it is super rare. But Linux did not have that limit, Linux had 4GB per process limit, but this was removed because it was useless.
So yes, in some ways, Microsoft failed to keep up with their competitors in this space. But Linux proved that large per-process limits weren't useful.
