Thread: UPDATE: "1st post" Nokia's Flagship Lumia 900 obsolete in less than a year? ELOP RESPONDS
View Single Post
Cue is offline Cue
2012-06-24 , 05:37
Posts: 840 | Thanked: 823 times | Joined on Nov 2009
#144
Originally Posted by Maemomd View Post
There has been no spread reasoning about this. Everyone in the computing community knows NT cannot be squeezed onto an embedded C machine, can't be done, not on embedded C. This has been known for years, from every version of embedded c, NT, etc. This is NOT new news.

It is unfortunate that this was not explained to Lumia owners, but without this change in platform, there would be even more fragmentation across the boards...not there is isn't fragmentation. Look, you call it bull, fine, but know that this is not some epiphany, NT and embedded C were NEVER compatible within machines, all embedded machines are not able to take NT due to way too many conflicts.

I understand that you are very upset about this, but it has been known for years on all versions.
I think I'm going to reply one more time and give up because this is wearing thin on me. I do not care for the Lumia range, didn't buy one, so I'm not upset about this at all. However you have promised me real technical information from your MS buddy twice now and I have yet to receive any. At the beginning you were saying Windows CE was unchangeable now you are saying a kernel cannot "fit" or has some kind of unresolvable "conflict" with this older hardware. I would just like to know what these apparent conflicts are that make you believe a kernel cannot be written for older hardware too. I'm certainly not expecting it to just work in the current and final state that MS have made it now, I'm asking why you believe it was technically impossible for it to have been written to support older hardware. I already know and stated why it was not practically possible because of development time and ROI but you still seem to believe it's technically impossible and promised to tell me why Windows CE cannot be replaced.

Instead I got yet another empty promise of official MS info from your buddy and some mumbling about closed source and Android open source, as if that makes any difference to MS. It's not like they do not have access to their own kernel source and drivers. The embedded C part was just nonsense. Just read it

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.
I mean, that's nonsense which contains no useful information at all and I think you are aware of it yourself already.
Then you started talking about OEM customization of ARM generations. The instruction set for the ARM devices are exactly the same between WP7 and WP8, namely ARMv7. It hasn't changed. All the WP7/8 phones are Qualcomm Snapdragon SoC, S2/3 and S4 though I'm not sure how relevant you think that is to a supposed technical conflict since kernel support is not mutually exclusive anyway.

So what I've been saying for the past 5-6 posts is that there is no technical boundary to it as you wrongly claim, it's merely a problem of time invested. That's all I have to say on this topic really.
 

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Cue For This Useful Post: