Related
Hello everyone. Can I have some expert opinion please? Do we think that the tilt 2 which was just released last Oct. and I just got mine last week, will be able to support windows mobile 7? Do we think that AT&T will upgrade the OS when it comes out? Being and owner of win mo phones since the 8125 first came out, I know how slow AT&T is to release updated OS's.
This is by no means an "expert" opinion. But the general consensus nowadays is that only the HD2 is confirmed to support WinMo7 and our TP2 will not.
But, consider this:
-WinMo 6.5 was not meant to be on the Touch Diamond.
-WinMo devices were not meant to run Android.
-Sense 2.5 was not meant to come to our TP2.
Yet all the above are happening thanks to the great minds of XDA developers...
I'm not an expert at all...
But it seems like it's one thing for W7 to be somehow cooked to run on the TP2, but another thing for it to run well, without excessive lag (for example).
ohyeahar said:
This is by no means an "expert" opinion. But the general consensus nowadays is that only the HD2 is confirmed to support WinMo7 and our TP2 will not.
But, consider this:
-WinMo 6.5 was not meant to be on the Touch Diamond.
-WinMo devices were not meant to run Android.
-Sense 2.5 was not meant to come to our TP2.
Yet all the above are happening thanks to the great minds of XDA developers...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is a great point. Whenever someone dares to mention WinMo7 on the TP2, you get flamed and the spec impossibilities yelled at your face. But exactly my point about what people said "couldn't" be done!
It definitely won't be easy, but as long as the OS is cook-able, somebody will take on the task.
What worries me is though, WM7 may not be WM at all! Several reports told something about Zune OS being used instead, and being incompatible with any of the old applications. I hope not
sukru said:
It definitely won't be easy, but as long as the OS is cook-able, somebody will take on the task.
What worries me is though, WM7 may not be WM at all! Several reports told something about Zune OS being used instead, and being incompatible with any of the old applications. I hope not
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The Zune OS is based off of the Windows CE kernel, which is also the base for Windows Mobile, so there wouldn't be complete incompatibility as some of the false rumors lead you to believe. There are a lot of blatantly false rumors floating around on even the most respected WM sites, so take every unconfirmed rumor you read about WM 7 with a grain of salt.
Though I would love Windows Mobile 7 on the Touch Pro2, I have to say that it's pretty unlikely it'll happen. First, to everyone who gives the example of WM6 running on WM5 devices and WM6.5 running on WM 6.x/5.x devices, the reason this is easy is because all these operating systems (WM5-WM6) run the same Windows CE 5.2 kernel. It's a lot easier to backport an OS when it uses the same kernel. Windows Mobile 7 is going to be based off Windows CE 6 or 7, and it'll likely take a hell of a lot of low-level work to get WM7 on the Pro2.
If you don't believe me, look in this thread at PPCGeeks, where some of the most technical people discuss this issue in more detail. It seems to me that we'll need a new everything, from the SPL and bootloader to new hardware drivers (since it's extremely unlikely that WM7 will support the Qualcomm MSM series considering the rumored WM 6.5.x and WM 7 coexistance scheme, where only 6.5 supports lower end devices and hardware like the MSM series).
I'm not saying I don't want WM 7 on the Rhodium, since I really do, but I am trying to be realistic here, so I'm gonna say it's likely no to WM 7 on the Pro2.
one guy from htc russia announced WM7 minimal requirements: 8Gb onboard, CPU1GHz,FM, 5Mpx,compass,G-sensor,3,6",WVGA.
but of course its not true
My Universal (2005) came with wm5!
Then upgraded to wm6, then to wm6.1 and I got it working with wm6.5
I´m sure the great chefs here will manage something so we can have wm7 for sure!
CAN IT BE UPGRADED TO WINDOWS MOBILE??
does it support windows mobile to be installed on it??
Even if it's possible, I don't think "upgrading" is the correct term.
he might means wp7S
Why would you buy a brand new Android phone and even want to change the OS - astounded!!
I think he means "porting" to WM. I am also wondering if this would be possible to port to WM7S with this device, although, strict hardware chassis requirements would be required (Back, Start and Search button on all Windows Phone 7 Series devices).
I didnt think it was possible to run WM on an android phone, i always thought that android on WM was only possible
Currently, there is no way of installing Windows Mobile on any Android phone
But you can install Android on Windows Mobile on selected devices.
Porting WP7 to the desire would be a downgrade, not an upgrade. WP7 is going to be even more watered down than the iPhone OS, and a trident based web browser... no thanks
Oh dear, getting deja vu feelings here. Let's say it's a recurring topic when new Android devices come out And every time the replies are about the same lol
WP7 offers classic mode
If the news is true and not an April Fool's joke, WP7 will offer a classic mode download once it's launched and we will be able to run all wm6.5.3 programs on it, similar to WinXP mode on Win7. This will be a good reason to port over to WP7 right?
Edit:
Oh well, after doing just a bit more googling it appears to be just another joke.
crasher said:
If the news is true and not an April Fool's joke, WP7 will offer a classic mode download once it's launched and we will be able to run all wm6.5.3 programs on it, similar to WinXP mode on Win7. This will be a good reason to port over to WP7 right?
Edit:
Oh well, after doing just a bit more googling it appears to be just another joke.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I actually believe it would be easier just to make kind of Windows Mobile emulator or virtualization, something like wine on linux to run wm classic software on android rather than porting to proprietary platform
patasenko said:
I actually believe it would be easier just to make kind of Windows Mobile emulator or virtualization, something like wine on linux to run wm classic software on android rather than porting to proprietary platform
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
WINE exists for desktop linux but it's been developed on for years. I'm sure something is possible it's just a case of who would want to adopt and code such a product. And anyway, I think if something was attempted it would be to emulate iPhone apps on Android not WM apps.
I couldn't believe the title of this thread. WHY would anyone want to do this ?
Stick to Android. It will fair you well.
easy
Actually, its remarkably simple to get your Desire to run an almost identical experience to Windows Mobile. Just put it on the floor, and then stamp on it at least fifteen times. Then leave it in the bath for at least an hour.
Upgraded?!?
Windows Mobile is dead and Windows Phone 7 sucks balls, it's worse than iPhone OS.
Nice reactions to Windows Mobile!
I only had wm5 on an old mda compact ii, just got my desire with android and OMG, who would ever take android off their phone? !
profet said:
Actually, its remarkably simple to get your Desire to run an almost identical experience to Windows Mobile. Just put it on the floor, and then stamp on it at least fifteen times. Then leave it in the bath for at least an hour.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
LMFAO!!
At least there wasn't any flaming of the OP this time....
Why would you want to port winmo-CRAP to an android phone like the HTC Desire ???????????????????/
While I'm not a fan of microsoft in general, I have a Topaz presently and I do like both the phone and the HTC Sense/TF3D interface. I also have a collection of apps that I've grown quite fond of, apps that AFAIK don't have any Android counterparts.
In fact, the only things I'd like to improve on the Topaz is a slightly larger screen and much faster CPU. If I could have the Desire with winmo 6.5 or 6.5.x this would fit the bill perfectly.
I know of the supposed HTC Obsession/Diamond 3, but it's supposed to run WP7 and with the kind of functionality sacrifices that means (copy/paste, multitasking, no 3rp party UIs/skins) I'm not tempted.
Each to their own, live and let live. Just because you don't understand why, doesn't make it wrong.
Why on earth would anyone want to install WM on the Desire??
I think its possible like some of the members said, using WINE or something, but i doubt that anyone would be interested (maybe just for experimental purposes)
profet said:
Actually, its remarkably simple to get your Desire to run an almost identical experience to Windows Mobile. Just put it on the floor, and then stamp on it at least fifteen times. Then leave it in the bath for at least an hour.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Made my day!
Yes, that's correct. Windows Phone 7 will NOT be officially supported on anything that is currently on the market. Microsoft has repeatedly stated this. It has rather high end specs that very few phones on the market can even support. In addition, Microsoft has a very firm mandate on things such as having the 3, and only 3, buttons on the front of the device.
So will someone here be able to port WP7 to a current device, unofficially? It depends on which device. Does your phone have a Snapdragon CPU? If the answer is no then there is very, and I mean very, little chance of your phone ever seeing WP7. There's a few reasons but the first and foremost being that all of the binaries are compiled with the ARMv7 instruction set. So basically the only phones (that I know of) are the HTC HD2, Acer neotouch, and Toshiba TG01. The most likely is the HD2 which is actively being worked on by Da_G and probably some other people. Several Android phones also sport the snapdragon but we've yet to see an android phone with WM6 running on it so I doubt we'll see WP7 on one either. So I won't straight up rule out other phones from getting some sort of WP7 hack but it's extremely unlikely. If it somehow does, expect the performance to be extremely crappy. There's a reason MS set the requirements to what they did.
Mods: please sticky.
Stickied. WP7/CE6/(future CE7) is quite the different ball game from WM2003/WM5/WM6/WM6.5/CE5/CE5.x...
There's also the LG Expo which runs QSD/ARMv7, so is a possible target.
The major hurdle with porting is that our current devices contain Radio ROMs, Drivers, and Bootloaders which all target the CE5.x platform. CE6+ is a different beast on a low level (in a good way, there are major improvements across the board which required breaking API compatibility - these improvements have been long overdue)
With access to whitepapers documenting the hardware's interface(s) and initialization routines, Platform Builder for WP7, and a good bit of time it's certainly possible to bring any platform supporting ARMv7 up to WP7. However such information/software is not public, so it's up to the OEM to either develop this (not at all likely) or release the requisite platform BSP (also not at all likely) to enable anyone to port their devices to WP7.
There are other possible methods such as emulation, but the amount of work involved would outweigh the end result by a good margin. The OEMs major concerns with porting ROMs is the sharing of 3rd party software to which they are not authorized to license distribution (for example, HTC licenses WM from MSFT, and also licenses a number of other technologies such as swype)
One possible solution for this in an ideal world is for Qualcomm to license HTC to distribute a binary-only driver solution, similar to Nvidias driver license on *nix. Combining that with HTC's own OEM specific binary-only libraries, would give us a bare-bones Platform BSP. This would contain only technologies owned by Qualcomm and HTC. They could then release this bare bones, binary-only, pre-linking BSP, and we could, on our end, combine it with the WP7 Platform Builder, and come out with a completely stock WP7 ROM.
This would allow us to constantly update the OS version, add our own 3rd party software as needed, and eliminate the need to use "cooking" tools to build a ROM (instead we could use MSFT's own PB or a derivative of such)
In this situation there wouldn't be any licensing issues outside of Qualcomm and HTC's own IP. Will they ever do this? I doubt it. But it would be very, very nice! It would satisfy the OEM's requirement that we don't redistribute 3rd party software, and satisfy our own needs to tweak our phones to perfection. Note that Qualcomm/HTC is interchangable with any SoC developer and any OEM. Rather than Qualcomm/HTC it could be Texas Instruments/Samsung, or xxxx/yyyy
Of course there are some other snags with this (WP7 Platform Builder is not publicly available), but one can dream right?
Side note, for more info on what a BSP is from the horses mouth, look here.
Da_G, respecting all the tries that have been made till now, if ever Windows Phone 7 would be ported it would be on very certain device - like lg expo or hd2, as per the hardware requirements. it would be better to buy a windows phone 7 device than buying and porting wp7 on the above devices.
microsoft is trying to create a hype for windows phone 7, and is in the news though not much. almost all windows mobile OEMs are making wp7 devices. if an OEM is making a device with high end specs, it won't port its own software(ui) on the buggy windows mobile, but will buy license for let's say android or why not wp7. we have seen how the OEM tried hard to optimise windows mobile 6.1 and 6.5 on snapdragon. windows mobile still got the future but with limited hardware..
I am one of many owners of an HD2.
Who will lose is the MS.
Will lose many WM7 ambassadors..... will a HD2 owner, buy a new WM7 device ?.......no!.......we will port the HD2 to Android, and become one more Droid embassador.
This is the business of MS in the world of smartphones.....a no upgrade SO\Device seller.
Why would you swap to Android? When you need a new phone, a WP7 would make a good replacement for any Windows Mobile device.
Windcape said:
Why would you swap to Android? When you need a new phone, a WP7 would make a good replacement for any Windows Mobile device.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Because its Android....its open source, its just better ok, dont question!
i think the issue is that the HD2 is more than capable of doing a lot more than it currently does and i for one have an issue with upgrading phones because of software, if i want an upgrade its for hardware reasons so naturally if other OS's can be ported to the HD2 then it will sustain my device a bit longer. until its no longer able to run what i want it to run.
Android phones are as open source as iPhones are (Android OS, and Darwin OS is open source, most of the rest is closed-source modifications).
Anyway, I don't think it's Microsoft's choice if HD2 get WP7 or not, but HTCs. And HTC look forward to a large profit margin by selling extra much hardware this year, so obviously they wouldn't want to upgrade HD2 -- at least not the first six months.
Windcape said:
Why would you swap to Android? When you need a new phone, a WP7 would make a good replacement for any Windows Mobile device.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Because I paid well for it,a shortly time, and i dont want to spend more money, to bought a new Device, always MS upgrade the OS....opposite of the top devices with Android or iphone.
was my mistake, I can not blame anyone else, I was naive in thinking that it would take a WM7 upgrade due to good specs of HD2.
my mistake.
But I will not throw out my HD2
For the iPhone you get a upgrade for a small price, for Android you're completely relying on the mercy of your manufacturer. And the less you pay, the less chance in hell there is you get a update, special for Android phones.
You're being naive if you think Android is any different here.
3 buttons is a must? Nog sure if that could be true... some manufacturers would be left out/give up themselves because of this constraint.
7 for phones... MSFT is losing smartphones market share. Trust me... they will make it available for the... gen pop
Is this suppose to be news? I though everyone knew by now that WM7 will not be supporting current Winmo phones....
It's not meant to be news, it's meant to stop people asking will WP7 be ported to my TP2/Diamond2/(insert current wm phone name here) question
Does this mean WP7 can only be for snapdragon and not OMAP, hummingbird, tegra 2 and all the other arm cpu's out there?
ari-free said:
Does this mean WP7 can only be for snapdragon and not OMAP, hummingbird, tegra 2 and all the other arm cpu's out there?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Little is officially known about this however it's believed that at first only Snapdragon will be supported. But with Samsung being a partner and other companies certainly wanting choice, it won't last forever. Samsung devices very well may have a Hummingbird but Samsung would just have to develop more of the drivers whereas MSFT is developing everything for Snapdragon.
I just assumed older arm cpu's wouldn't be supported. But only snapdragon? ugh...
I'm not a big fan of HTC because they insist on using snapdragons in their supposedly high end phones.
btw Samsung will probably not use hummingbird in future phones because Apple bought out intrinsity. But I can't imagine them wanting to use snapdragon...they'd probably want to use the OMAP4 which has the same powerVR GPU, the SGX540. OMAP3's cpu is actually better than hummingbird so I don't think anyone will be crying over the Apple acquisition.
In my opinion, HTC could disable a couple of the buttons on my HD2 if it made it applicable for WP7. Though, on the other hand, I see as much reason to upgrade to WP7 as to go for an iPhone. I'd rather iPuke my iGuts out. WP7 looks iAweful and I think it iSucks pretty bad.
I understand Microsoft's rationale for making the specs as strict as they have, as this is the sole reason iPoo...iPhone is so stable. There's simply no room for flawed drivers, and there's only one "option"
ari-free said:
I just assumed older arm cpu's wouldn't be supported. But only snapdragon? ugh...
I'm not a big fan of HTC because they insist on using snapdragons in their supposedly high end phones.
btw Samsung will probably not use hummingbird in future phones because Apple bought out intrinsity. But I can't imagine them wanting to use snapdragon...they'd probably want to use the OMAP4 which has the same powerVR GPU, the SGX540. OMAP3's cpu is actually better than hummingbird so I don't think anyone will be crying over the Apple acquisition.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I thought Samsung owned/designed Hummingbird?
But at any rate, MSFT will likely open it up later on. They're just keeping it simple for now. Not enough of a difference to start writing/testing drivers for all these different platforms.
tiwas said:
In my opinion, HTC could disable a couple of the buttons on my HD2 if it made it applicable for WP7.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Having seen videos on how the camera button works, you can now understand why you cant just bodge WP7 onto a HD2.
DMAND said:
Having seen videos on how the camera button works, you can now understand why you cant just bodge WP7 onto a HD2.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Their internal test devices didn't have hardware camera buttons.
Yes but all retail ones will, one that require half presses for focusing which none of the hd2 buttons could be forced to do if I'm correct.
Hi All
Is it possible, that will come an Windows Phone 7 rom on the HTC desire???
No development and posted before: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=814839
That would be nice!
Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk
mission impossible
Okay, here's the question that appears in most of these threads:
...Why would you want an inferior OS installed on top of Android?
I had a play with wp7 the other day, on the outside it seemed very very sleek and user friendly but when you read the reviews about what is missing.... urg. Its like going back to basics
Moved to Q&A. As was stated in the thread title, this is a question, so it should not be posted in development.
TermyJW said:
...Why would you want an inferior OS installed on top of Android?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Inferiority is in the eye of the beholder. So please don't state an opinion as being fact. Some of us just like to try different things, whether it be roms or OSs.
Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk
PinkySlayer said:
Inferiority is in the eye of the beholder. So please don't state an opinion as being fact. Some of us just like to try different things, whether it be roms or OSs.
Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thats not true, wp7 is inferior to android in every respect, it might look deep, but if you read up on all.the things ms has left out, it can barely be called a smartphone os, more like a feature phone......
Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk
WP7 is effectively a brand new OS (primarily because the previous versions were so awful) so it is bound to be lacking in some areas. But compare Android v1 to WP7 v1 and the comparison isn't so favourable. M$ are sometimes slow to join the party, but give them time and the will give android a damned good run for its money.
But put all that aside, it all comes down to personal preference. I have worked with Windows since 3.1 and although I have tried various favours of Linux, I don't "get it". I used iOS for 18 months b4 Android and Android is inferior in many ways, but it comes down to personal preference.
And remember, XDA Developers was originally a Windows Mobile forum, so don't be so closed minded about people's individual choices.
Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk
PinkySlayer said:
WP7 is effectively a brand new OS (primarily because the previous versions were so awful) so it is bound to be lacking in some areas. But compare Android v1 to WP7 v1 and the comparison isn't so favourable.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why would I compare Android V1 to WP7? Android V1 with WP1, maybe, but if you want to tell me that WP7, after so many editions/versions, is similar to Android V1, that is one huge fail my friend.
On topic.. it's impossible and I agree that the interest to put inferior OS is really low. Those are very few people that would have it installed (if it was possible) and soon after remove it. For those I don't think any dev would go the hard way of porting WP7 to Desire.
ljesh said:
Why would I compare Android V1 to WP7? Android V1 with WP1, maybe, but if you want to tell me that WP7, after so many editions/versions, is similar to Android V1, that is one huge fail my friend.
On topic.. it's impossible and I agree that the interest to put inferior OS is really low. Those are very few people that would have it installed (if it was possible) and soon after remove it. For those I don't think any dev would go the hard way of porting WP7 to Desire.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Come on, you say that something is impossible on a developers forum?
There was a short youtube movie a few months back, which showed WP7 booting up on a HD2. So it's not impossible, it's just a question if there are some devs that want to put time in it
ljesh said:
Why would I compare Android V1 to WP7? Android V1 with WP1, maybe, but if you want to tell me that WP7, after so many editions/versions, is similar to Android V1, that is one huge fail my friend.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And Android v1 was a development of....? Linux. Hardly a new development, whereas WP7 is new from the ground up.
The point is, some of us would love to experiment with different OSs but don't want to, or can't afford to buy new hardware to do so. Whereas some other people are so blinkered that they think Android is the ultimatimate OS - this is a subjective decision based on personal preference, not an absolute quantifiable fact.
ljesh said:
Those are very few people that would have it installed (if it was possible) and soon after remove it
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In your opinion. As I said before, this was a Windows Mobile forum long before it incorporated other OSs and devices, but you wouldn't know that as you've only been on here for a year or so.
PinkySlayer said:
And Android v1 was a development of....? Linux. Hardly a new development, whereas WP7 is new from the ground up.
The point is, some of us would love to experiment with different OSs but don't want to, or can't afford to buy new hardware to do so. Whereas some other people are so blinkered that they think Android is the ultimatimate OS - this is a subjective decision based on personal preference, not an absolute quantifiable fact.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
your missing the point totally, im no fanboy trust me, but although android is based on an established os, it it googles first attempt at creating an operating system where as microsoft have been doing this for well over a decade. anyway my point is android is a smartphone os, all microsoft have created is a ms iphone, wp7 is not a smartphone os more like a feature phone os, windows mobile was more like the pc version of windows, where as wp7 is just a microsoft phone, it leaves little for developers to create, as they have to do this and that and plaster ms all over the place just like apple enforce with the iphone.
android has alot more scope for development and alot more freedom for developers to develop there ideas. anyway the bottom line is wp7 is not open source, there will never be any source code available for it, this makes porting it an almost impossible task, i dare say i could count the people on 1 hand that have the ability to do this task
ps ive been on here for alot longer than may 10, i changed my tag when i moved to android, my first device was a htc kaiser
Call me Mr Argumentative, but...
AndroHero said:
your missing the point totally, im no fanboy trust me, but although android is based on an established os, it it googles first attempt at creating an operating system
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Google didn't create an OS, they ported an established one.
AndroHero said:
anyway my point is android is a smartphone os, all microsoft have created is a ms iphone, wp7 is not a smartphone os more like a feature phone os
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Definition of smartphone: "A smartphone is a mobile phone offering advanced capabilities, often with PC-like functionality".
Definition of feature phone: "A mobile phone or mobile (also called cellphone and handphone) is an electronic device used for mobile telecommunications (mobile telephone, text messaging or data transmission)"
I think that your understanding of these terms is way off.
AndroHero said:
it leaves little for developers to create, as they have to do this and that and plaster ms all over the place just like apple enforce with the iphone. android has alot more scope for development and alot more freedom for developers to develop there ideas.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You seem to suggest that a smartphone needsto be opensource whereas most smartphone OSs are in fact proprietary, e.g. Blackberry, iOS, WebOS, BadaOS and before Symbian went open source a year ago, closed source would have accounted for about 80% of the market!
AndroHero said:
anyway the bottom line is wp7 is not open source, there will never be any source code available for it, this makes porting it an almost impossible task, i dare say i could count the people on 1 hand that have the ability to do this task
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Fair comment, but it would still be very cool.
PinkySlayer said:
And Android v1 was a development of....? Linux. Hardly a new development, whereas WP7 is new from the ground up.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think you will find that WP7 is based on Windows CE 6, with some elements from the forthcoming CE 7. So not at all new really considering that CE 6 dates from 2006!
Regards,
Dave
You are correct, it is a CE6/CE7 hybrid, so it has much in common with Android in that they are new platforms based on existing underlying technology. Shud have checked my facts on that one.
Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk
People who say that it isn't possible, check here:
WP7 running on the HD2.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=832533
Lennyz1988 said:
People who say that it isn't possible, check here:
WP7 running on the HD2.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=832533
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There's potentially a very big difference!
The existing WM bootloader (IPL/SPL etc) on the HD2 may make it possible to boot WP7 on it. I'm not saying this is definitely the case, but it does seem quite likely to me. In addition, they are talking about this being an early build of WP7 - again, it's quite likely that the HD2 was used as a test platform for WP7.
That's not to say that it would be impossible to get WP7 running on a Desire, but it does given potential reason why it would be a lot harder than on the HD2.
Regards,
Dave
It's a beta! It's buggy, it's slow (at least on a Surface RT).
If you use your tablet daily, stay away from this thing. Wait for the full release.
SilverHedgehog said:
It's a beta! It's buggy, it's slow (at least on a Surface RT).
If you use your tablet daily, stay away from this thing. Wait for the full release.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
expecting bumps. so far it's good and I am not experiencing any hiccups yet. I very much like the changes.
cheers
Well, I found it rather buggy - though considering how I use it, I'm rather surprised how well it works in 8.0. Still, a warning might be a good idea - I'm sick of people attacking companies when beta software is behaving like beta software.
It's also so limited in terms of the number of devices and regions it will actually install in, I rather get the impression it was a real rush job to try and show that improvements are at least coming at some point.
SilverHedgehog said:
It's a beta! It's buggy, it's slow (at least on a Surface RT).
If you use your tablet daily, stay away from this thing. Wait for the full release.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don`t stand by you .I think the RT 8.1 is perfect。The experience on my surface RT is nice
seven7xiaoyang said:
I don`t stand by you .I think the RT 8.1 is perfect。The experience on my surface RT is nice
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I second that.. My Surface is faster and smoother now. Especially with IE11. I have no more lags or getting the Browser to freeze. I love it!
I have the 8.1 Preview on my Surface RT and it seems fine. I wouldn't caution anybody against it based on what I've seen so far.
Tk
ToddKlindt said:
I have the 8.1 Preview on my Surface RT and it seems fine. I wouldn't caution anybody against it based on what I've seen so far.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Jailbreak. 'Nuff said.
Using Spotify crashes the browser - worked perfectly in 8.0.
A reminder to all who find bugs: PLEASE report them to MS! This is our last chance to ask Microsoft to fix things while the software is in development. Once it ships and gets handed off to a maintenance team, changes will be much slower to arrive.
Note: while the continued restriction on running our own desktop apps is not strictly a bug, this is also a good time to complain to MS about that; it's a very easy policy for them to change, if they decide it would be worth it!
So far my experience with windows rt. 8.1 is very nice. I like the outlook 2013, the keyboard and the response time of the tablet.
GoodDayToDie said:
A reminder to all who find bugs: PLEASE report them to MS! This is our last chance to ask Microsoft to fix things while the software is in development. Once it ships and gets handed off to a maintenance team, changes will be much slower to arrive.
Note: while the continued restriction on running our own desktop apps is not strictly a bug, this is also a good time to complain to MS about that; it's a very easy policy for them to change, if they decide it would be worth it!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You need to read up on win32 vs. RT as well as some basic application architecture, then you will see why your complaint isn't valid.
Just because it has a pretty desktop and a run box doesn't mean apps magically work... Code for winform apps has to be compiled for arm vs x86/x64 to function and that just isn't going to happen. Explorer is there for a shim/stopgap.. By win9, will likely be gone for good.
This is like winnt on alpha and 2008 on titanium all over again... Except its now in the hands of consumers that don't understand what's going on under the covers.
MS should have never put a traditional desktop/explorer in RT and just finished the port of apps to modernui because its confusing to the average user.
Just think if apple had a shortcut in iOS to give you a macosx desktop that didn't run Mac apps..
Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 4 Beta
@libbycm: Despite being here even longer than I have, you appear to have no idea who you're talking to *or* what you're talking about.
I maintain the Ported Apps thread for RT, and have ported a few of them myself (and should get back into it with something more realistic than Chrome, which I still hope to get working Some Day Soon Now). I am quite *personally* familiar with the requirements of porting, the difficulties of working around missing functionality (almost all of which, it should be noted, is missing by design and not neccessity), and the realities of what an ARM processor can and cannot do.
First of all, .NET apps (including WinForms ones and even once that use COM or P/Invoke to system libraries) work just fine, no recompile needed. That's a pretty small portion of the overall Windows software ecosystem, of course, but it's a growing one and also it's one that would be seen as worth targeting by more developers if they saw an actual benefit to architecture-independent toolchains on Windows.
Second, and related to the first, .NET is far from the only architecture-independent language. Java (though IKVM, though .NET) kind of works on RT already; it wouldn't take much to make a serious platform worthy of an official port. Same for Python, and we already have Perl. Yeah, that's still miniscule next to the bulk of legacy x86 code, but it would nonetheless make RT a far more popular platform (for example, many of the Windows bittorrent clients are either Java or Python code, and some very popular games are written in those languages).
Third, even with the crippled tools that we have cobbled together to do our porting, and despite the fact that it's all done on our own time, we've managed a fair number of native ports already. There'd be far more if it weren't for the fact that we can't port closed-source programs (and many open-source ones don't happily compile under MSVC, which is the only RT-targeting compiler we have right now). Already, a growing number of programs are natively available on x64 - after all, it's just a drop-down selection and another click on "Build" in Visual Studio. Well, the same is true of RT. It wouldn't get legacy software, but there's no reason that *new* software released in the last half year - even proprietary commercial stuff - couldn't support RT. After all, it's more customer base for almost no additional work (supporting x64 is sometimes actually more work than supported ARM; at least ARM uses the same-width pointers as x86).
Fourth, legacy code is - by its very nature - older code and generally suitable for running on less-powerful systems. You mentioned Apple... but you failed to mention that when Apple went from 68k CPUs to PowerPC CPUs, and then from PPC to x86, they used mostly-transparent emulation layers to bridge those gaps. Yeah, the code ran slower, but it ran well enough for most purposes. Yeah, ARM is *less* powerful than x86, not more powerful (although you could argue that the same is true for some use cases when going from a G5 to a first-gen Core Duo), but we've also gotten better at this emulation thing. When Apple did it before, they hired the best folks in the business, and pushed the entire field of CPU emulation forward with their need to make it work. When Microsoft declined to do that, one guy on XDA took it upon himself, in his free time, with only a partial toolchain and no access to Windows internals, hacking on open-source pieces, and built a transparent emulation layer for RT. Microsoft's Windows application compatibility team almost certainly loses more man-hours in one day's bathroom breaks than @mamaich has been able to spend on that project to date, and yet some of those very same people who pushed the whole industry forward at Apple, doing things like inventing what is today called dynamic recompilation, now work at Microsoft. They have the expertise to make it work if they'd wanted to.
Fifth, Windows on Itanium failed (mostly; it's still being used, just not developed) because Itaniums were targeted specifically at the enterprise market but weren't very good even there; there's plenty of software for that instruction set in the aforementioned market. Alpha (never mind Windows on Alpha, which I actually know people who used and worked on) failed because DEC wanted outrageous sums of money for it, seeking high-end margins instead of embracing the commodity market. Had they done otherwise, they might even still exist as a company today. NT on MIPS and PPC was similarly niche, targeting brand new (and poorly-merketed) segments that didn't have great penetration in the ecosystem (NT for PPC was a server/workstation OS, not a MacOS alternative). Unlike all those achitectures, though, ARM is well established in the consumer market for commodity computers, and its market share there is growing. If Microsoft is serious about succeeding with RT (and I think they are), they should look at the success story in that market... and it's not Apple anymore. Despite Apple's huge first-mover advantage with the consumer market, Android is rolling over them. Yet Microsoft seems determined to repeat many of Apple's mistakes, despite having precious few of its advantages. They need to make themselves a better Android, not a me-too Apple clone.
Sixth, while Microsoft has made no secret of their desire to move to WinRT, I don't really forsee them having much more success with that than with their prior effort to move people to .NET; lots of small developers will go, but the big programs that are the movers and shakers of the Windows world will stick with the vastly more powerful, flexible, and (frankly) useful Win32 API. Porting an app to RT is a hell of a lot harder than porting x86 native code to ARM, though...