Re: UPDATE: "1st post" Nokia's Flagship Lumia 900 obsolete in less than a year? ELOP RESPONDS
 

Lumiaman, im not sure what level of knowledge you had, but 3GS able to upgrade to IOS6

Re: UPDATE: "1st post" Nokia's Flagship Lumia 900 obsolete in less than a year? ELOP RESPONDS
 

What I was trying to say is that we didn't have those 3rd party toolkits/libraries/environments on the Maemo/MeeGo series due to the insignificant user base (in the grand scheme of things; I do think that one could still earn some sweet cash even on the N9 with some `killer app`), WP7.x didn't have those not only because it's, at this point, insignificant but because the platform couldn't handle them, at least not in a way that would not break or limit the rest of those 3rd party environments if they want to keep the consistency across platforms.

WP8, on the other hand, will most probably get them not only because it can support them (native code and all that jazz), but because Microsoft, unlike Nokia, ain't shy to throw money at their projects so the 3rd party providers of those environments can get a strong fiscal incentive to make them available for the WP8 as well. Microsoft forced the Xbox in the market by shear money throwing, why would it be different with WP - the fact that their user base is atm. pretty insignificant won't stop Microsoft from pushing.

Actually, the very fact they have an infinitesimal user base allowed them to do this bait-and-switch with their system now - most of the current WP users chose WP specifically either from the love of the UI (whaaat? people have the right to have no taste at all :P) or Microsoft (they also have the right to be irrational) so they are far more forgiving than the general population. Nokia didn't have that luxury with their quite significant user base, which is why they are now in the dire straits.

Anyway, back to the point - existing WP7.x users got royally screwed as the WP8 will get all those things that WP7.x cannot support, so quite a lot of new apps (especially games) will not work on the old devices. I just find it hilarious for some people to rationalize that with hardware differences - it's not as if the WP7 couldn't run native if allowed to (I'm pretty sure that IE was not written in .NET), it's just that Microsoft can't be bothered with that. With the N9 (and the N900 prior to that) we at least knew our devices were DOA, but we relied on their openness and the respectable community to at least get us some cookies; those who bought in the WP7.x won't have that luxury.

Re: UPDATE: "1st post" Nokia's Flagship Lumia 900 obsolete in less than a year? ELOP RESPONDS
 

It could be hardware. If the core of what MS defines as WP8 needs more ram, a bigger flash partition to hold the OS, requires multiple cores, or other hardware for encryption, NFC etc .etc.
Microsoft doesn't allow native code in WP7 because they knew they would switch to NT kernel. Windows CE is very different and doesn't support the same API and libraries as NT.

Re: UPDATE: "1st post" Nokia's Flagship Lumia 900 obsolete in less than a year? ELOP RESPONDS
 

Oh, I'm perfectly aware of the limitations, but don't tell me that Microsoft couldn't do it if they wanted to - they most certainly have an in-house native SDK for the WP7.x so all they'd have to do is just add different targets in VS and of course limit API usage and such for each platform specifically, but you'd still be able to use vast of the business logic from your app to target both platforms.

It would be a pointless thing to do from Microsoft's perspective, but would gain them some positive PR. They judged that their existing small user base is not worth all the trouble and I'm okay with that, I just have a problem with rationalizing why something can't be done. WP7 to support native 3rd party would be a breeze, to have a layer of WP8-like APIs on top of it would be a bit more difficult, but still - it's not as if Microsoft couldn't do it, nor that the hardware is the biggest limit. FFS, I did native coding for a device with 32MB of RAM and something that cannot be called a CPU by any modern definition of the word, running Windows CE - don't tell me I couldn't do that on the WP7.x if allowed.

The thing is, Microsoft had three viable paths in this transition:

1) Build a MinWin kernel for the existing devices
2) Back-port all non-HW restricted goodies to WP7.x devices (and that includes native SDKs with similar APIs and so on)
3) Just say - eff them, give them some of the Start screen bling and call it a day

And they've chosen the third one. I'd even argue they did the right thing here, at least from the financial and development time point of view, but don't give me that crap that Microsoft couldn't do it any differently.

Re: UPDATE: "1st post" Nokia's Flagship Lumia 900 obsolete in less than a year? ELOP RESPONDS
 

I wonder what will happen to the Nokia stock when Microsoft announces the flagship in-house built WP8 phone. Let's hope Nokia wasn't stupid enough to not have this scenario covered by the secret treaty. However, the fact that it already happened with tablets leads me to think otherwise. They might be ****** in the *** hard by Microsoft. Needless to say, this would seal the fate of Nokia.

Re: UPDATE: "1st post" Nokia's Flagship Lumia 900 obsolete in less than a year? ELOP RESPONDS
 

Kind of disappointing to come back to an empty PM box though somewhat expected. I think your MS buddy is either pulling your leg or you are pulling mine. Should I still assume this dropbox link would arrive? If not then it's rather nice of you to tell somebody they don't know what they are talking about and promise them knowledge as to why, only to not deliver any at all, either yourself or your buddy from MS.

It still seems to me you have mistaken the "embedded" from Windows Compact Embedded to mean non-flashable firmware. I still have not received any information as to why a WP7 phone cannot bootstrap a different OS/kernel other than Windows CE. In fact I linked to an example of a WP7 where it had been replaced already and have done it with much older (a Compaq iPAQ) personally. Unless your MS buddy can show otherwise I will assume s/he is incorrect.

To be honest I wouldn't be surprised if your MS buddy is pulling your leg, it seems they are pulling everyone elses:

This was the excuse on another forum
Does anybody remember when they were publicly saying WP7 was a complete rewrite?

The guy didn't even explain why it doesn't work on WP7 devices
WP7 launch device:
HTC HD7
QSD8250 is ARMv7 in fact I can't think of any launch device that was pre-ARMv7. Lumia 900, ARMv7. Now what remains to be seen is the OS ram footprint. if WP8 does not support 512MB ram, I will eat my hat.

Re: UPDATE: "1st post" Nokia's Flagship Lumia 900 obsolete in less than a year? ELOP RESPONDS
 

"waves hand"

Sure. That's why you have the choice of quite some kernels in Linux/BSD/UX land....

Also, why does a different kernel require "significantly" more RAM?

I smell either politics (maybe even carrier/industry-related) and/or, as usual, plain incompetence behind the reasonings from MSFT.

EDIT: wasn't there an experiment undertaken by some guy to test how many iterations of a certain Microsoft desktop OS older (OLD) hardware could boot? Simliar to, but not exactly this.

Re: UPDATE: "1st post" Nokia's Flagship Lumia 900 obsolete in less than a year? ELOP RESPONDS
 

That article is plain wrong. That is not what Microsoft is doing and you will see that.

Re: UPDATE: "1st post" Nokia's Flagship Lumia 900 obsolete in less than a year? ELOP RESPONDS
 

Sorry, was on call until now, just emailed a couple of MS buddies of mine. I do have a feeling will get similar answer, but honestly with a closed system as is embedded C and NT, there are multiple conflicts when comparing the two, and with the limitations of embedded C on limited hardware, the only thing I saw that could go on a such a limited device is Android, which is only semi-open.

And with the ARM argument, you could go the other way and say, yes ARM support is there, but only for high end/next gen chips, since ARM generations are so different from each other due to order customizations from OEMs.

You are obviously very gungho in trying to jam NT onto a Lumia, I think that would be a cool project to try, and for you to post your results on this forum. There should be ways to try, certs to be purchased, etc, and if it works, then you showed them, good for you.

Re: UPDATE: "1st post" Nokia's Flagship Lumia 900 obsolete in less than a year? ELOP RESPONDS
 

Unfortunately There is no other way for me to say it so I'm going to be rather frank here, what you said in the first two paragraphs is complete nonsense.

I'm not gung-ho about putting WP8 (NT) onto the Lumia, I couldn't care less for the Lumia range though I do sympathize with those who bought them, at the same time, as I already said, I don't blame them for not going back and putting NT on the current Lumia range. It would have required development time that they obviously and understandably did not deem as worth it, but lets not make any mistakes, the possibility is there.

I only wanted to set the record straight, that other reasons spreading around the internet that it isn't possible are bull, I wanted to do this before people start repeating it as fact. Since the launch of WP7 the amount of times I heard that WP7 was a complete rewrite was staggering and the amount of times that I tried to convince them it wasn't often fell on death ears. MS have a history of it, they like to muddy the waters with public statements. One other example right now: it seems it's difficult to convince people that the difference between WP7.8 and WP8 is not about one having hardware like dual-core or NFC (there are WP7 NFC phones already) yet that's what a MS statement led them to believe.

It's bull, WP7.8 could benefit greatly from native code support, those with NFC could benefit greatly from the wallet feature, they could benefit greatly from the shared Windows 8 core. Yet by that starting line alone people think that WP7.8 is basically WP8 only without NFC or dualcore. You will see it repeated everywhere I'm sure. It will be hard to convince these people that this is not the case too because often they don't understand the technical side of the discussion so to them it becomes a matter of who to trust only.

"MS + Random commenter #1 vs Random commenter #2"

they often pick (MS+random commenter #1) then they themselves become random commenter #1 in another thread repeating everything they heard.