Microsoft implies users shouldn't worry about Windows Phone 8 support ending

Following news that support for Windows Phone 8 would end next year, Microsoft has reminded users that Windows Phone 8 devices will still be supported.

The Windows Phone team posted the reminder on the official Windows Phone account, saying the switch from the Windows CE core used in Windows Phone 7 to the Windows NT core used in Windows Phone 8 will allow devices using the latter operating system to be upgraded.

Microsoft is essentially trying to assuage users who may be worried that they'll have to buy a new device when support for Windows Phone 8 ends next year. Unlike Windows Phone 7 devices that can't be upgraded to support Windows Phone 8, however, the implication is that future Windows Phone upgrades will still work with Windows Phone 8 devices.

The impending Windows Phone Blue upgrade, in other words, would likely come to the devices, though Microsoft doesn't say that outright (possibly because carriers would have to make that announcement).

So while June 8, 2014, will mark the end of support for the Windows Phone 8 operating system, users with devices running that OS likely shouldn't have to worry about support ending for their smartphones – they'll just have to worry about how quickly their carriers will get the next version of the OS to them.

Source: Windows Phone Twitter via Windows Phone Daily

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

'When Lumia 920 kiss Surface, who win?'

Next Story

ARM CEO to depart company after nearly 12 years

35 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

what does support ending for wp8 have to do with upgradeability of the device? They are now using the NT kernel. The driver model will not change,and the cpu architecture is supported,so there is no reason they cant update the devices. With WP7,they were still using the CE kernel. A change to WP8 meant a change to the NT kernel. Different bootloaders,driver model,filesystem,etc... Too much work, risky and not worth it for anybody.

Plus I don't see anyone whining and making these headlines when ios and its features stops supporting older devices.

I think the concern here is that WP9 might need more RAM. So we might end up in a situation where we will still get WP9 but in a "light" form with missing features.

i.e. take the current low ram WP8 devices.

So the reason that the old devices couldn't be upgraded is because they changed the kernel, and the reason they changed the kernel is so it is upgradable?

Does not compute.

Interesting as the article focus only on carriers and not OEMs, I wonder why...
Anyway the main point is that the release of updates to customers is not handled by MS but by the two above mentioned subjects: OEMs and carriers as MS correctly states:
"Microsoft will make updates available for the Operating System on your phone, including security updates, for a period of 18 months after the lifecycle start date. Distribution of the updates may be controlled by the mobile operator or the phone manufacturer from which you purchased your phone. Update availability will also vary by country, region, and hardware capabilities."
Bottom lime there are a lot of variables involved, not only technical ones.

Its the same as apple. You'll probably be able to upgrade the software but very few of us want to hold onto old hardware no matter how good it is. What MS is saying is that the kernel isn't changing so yes you can upgrade software but W9 phones will have 1080p and wireless distance charging and be super thin....and so on.

Good to see this news, looks like a certain website jumped the gun and misinterpreted what was being said and others -including us picked up on it. I just signed for a HTC 8X on a two year contract that is effective from April 2013, so yeah.

There was a new Kernel. So they don't have time to build in features like that. They will come in Windows Phone 9 or 10...

Laughable isn't it?

no contest there. the windows phone team is just about the WORSE teams at MSFT having ignored basic features. I like Joe B. but he needs to go.

neonspark said,
no contest there. the windows phone team is just about the WORSE teams at MSFT having ignored basic features. I like Joe B. but he needs to go.

The fish always start to stink from the head.... At least Belfiore is able to deliver good presentations.

LogicalApex said,
Microsoft loves to make promises they can't keep...

The Windows Phone Chassis specifications were also supposed to make it easy to update devices, but that didn't seem to help the Lumia 900 at all.

http://dotnet-redzone.blogspot...s-phone-7-mango-update.html

I really don't see what you're getting at with that link. The reason the 900 didn't get 8 is because of changing kernels. That's a hell of a lot more than a bundle of features/bug fixes.

siah1214 said,

I really don't see what you're getting at with that link. The reason the 900 didn't get 8 is because of changing kernels. That's a hell of a lot more than a bundle of features/bug fixes.


Add to it that everything the WP7 devices where capable of doing even if it would get the WP8 kernel, is included in the 7.8 update. YOU'RE NOT MISSING OUT WITH YOUR ANTIQUE DEVICE

siah1214 said,

I really don't see what you're getting at with that link. The reason the 900 didn't get 8 is because of changing kernels. That's a hell of a lot more than a bundle of features/bug fixes.

Not too complicated to see my point. Microsoft made the point that the limited hardware spec for Windows Phone 7 that they themselves dictated would allow them to ensure updates (as they wouldn't have the million variations to deal with that they had with Windows Mobile 6 and Android has). That story didn't hold out when it came to the Lumia 900.

The Kernel change is a lot smaller than everyone is being led on about, but I understand that the majority of people here don't understand the technical details under the hood. Microsoft has standardized around Qualcomm to make their job of doing the kernel easier. All Windows Phone devices use Qualcomm chips. The variation between them can't be so striking that you need to write a new Kernel each time Qualcomm delivers a chip.

Switch from CE to NT was an major rewrite for WP. I have no clue how can you say that it wasn't as big as people think, it's exactly that big since WP was basically rewrote from scratch to NT (Some features were ported, sure).

Secondly, MS NEVER said any of the WP 7 devices would get WP8 and they were not wrong about updating, 7.8 is the second major upgrade for WP7, that's already 1 more than most Androids get, for example my SGS2 got.

Qualcomm has nothing to do with the kernel change so I have no clue what you're blabbering about. First get speed to why the kernel change was put in place and then try to "educate" other people on it.

LogicalApex said,
The variation between them can't be so striking that you need to write a new Kernel each time Qualcomm delivers a chip.

That statement right there is proof YOU "don't understand the technical details under the hood."

alwaysonacoffebreak said,
Switch from CE to NT was an major rewrite for WP. I have no clue how can you say that it wasn't as big as people think, it's exactly that big since WP was basically rewrote from scratch to NT (Some features were ported, sure).

Secondly, MS NEVER said any of the WP 7 devices would get WP8 and they were not wrong about updating, 7.8 is the second major upgrade for WP7, that's already 1 more than most Androids get, for example my SGS2 got.

Qualcomm has nothing to do with the kernel change so I have no clue what you're blabbering about. First get speed to why the kernel change was put in place and then try to "educate" other people on it.

Relax, my larger point is that Microsoft promised users updates and failed to deliver them. They are again promising users updates and they may or may not deliver on those promises time will tell. The Lumia 900 essentially got no updates. The major updates all came for older devices (pre-Mango).

The work isn't as you make it seem. Windows Phone was able to move to the NT Kernel because the NT Kernel team ported the Windows NT Kernel to ARM. Coincidentally, they focused on Qualcomm, Tegra, and OMAP chips. There was a significant amount of engineering work to port over all of Windows Phone that runs on top of the Kernel, but they didn't write the Kernel a separate team did. That seperate team wrote a Kernel like the traditional NT kernel, that can be used on any chip with a compatible instruction set (which is why they don't need to rewrite the NT Kernel when Intel pops out a new x86 chip). The reason WP7 devices were skipped were less due to technical reasons and more due to the reality that they sold pretty poorly and some OEMs dropped out. MS wasn't interested in porting drivers for the devices with such a small user base.

But carry on believing the PR version.


Again with the update story..

WP7 devices do have updates. Nokia devices should even get something close to 7.9 update, that's 3 big updates.

'Just because they didn't get WP8 doesn't mean they are going unsupported.

LogicalApex said,

Relax, my larger point is that Microsoft promised users updates and failed to deliver them. They are again promising users updates and they may or may not deliver on those promises time will tell. The Lumia 900 essentially got no updates. The major updates all came for older devices (pre-Mango).


WP7.8 is more than enough for that old hardware.

Crimson Rain said,

WP7.8 is more than enough for that old hardware.

The Lumia 900 is less than a year old... How often do you replace your device? Weekly? Monthly? Quarterly?

alwaysonacoffebreak said,

Again with the update story..

WP7 devices do have updates. Nokia devices should even get something close to 7.9 update, that's 3 big updates.

'Just because they didn't get WP8 doesn't mean they are going unsupported.

3? Where?

The only update for the Lumia 800 is 7.8 which really wasn't a big update, sorry.

This comment thread has only gone on so long due to me having to respond to people to debunk the "Kernel myth" and constant chirps of me not knowing what I'm talking about. My basic point was to point out that just because MS says they have updates planned doesn't mean you'll be getting them 2 years from now when your device is still under contract. Even worse for users like Canada where their contracts are 3 years long...

The jury is still out on if MS will actually deliver on their promises this time around. That is the only point I'm making other than having to respond to nonsense.

Oh my god.

Sorry, but I will not waste any more of my time on you. First get a clue what you're talking about.

Already the fact that you think it's dependent on Qualcomm for them to change kernel should make you an avoid target, don't know why did even get into this.

alwaysonacoffebreak said,
Oh my god.

Sorry, but I will not waste any more of my time on you. First get a clue what you're talking about.

Already the fact that you think it's dependent on Qualcomm for them to change kernel should make you an avoid target, don't know why did even get into this.

Dependent on Qualcomm? What are you talking about? I never said they were dependent on Qualcomm to modify the Kernel. I said the Windows NT Kernel for ARM was written to support the ARM instruction sets of Qualcomm, Tegra, and TI OMAP processors. The Kernel code has to support the instruction set of the processor it is running on...

But it is obvious that my discussions are too in-depth for Neowin.

neonspark said,
radio? you mean like the one way internet thing? wow. that still around?

My Lumia 920 does not have FM radio and it is very annoying; I am sure carriers and their metered connections love the music streaming paradigm but I do not.

I just found out there's no radio on my 920 too, where my 800 and samsung focus had it. This is news to me .

There is some logic to that - in an increasing number of cases the job that was being done by a radio can be done better by a mobile internet connection. It won't be that long before it's all cases. Including a component that is superseded by another feature isn't the way to go when you want to control things like size and battery life.

It is a significant trade off though and it sucks for people who really depend on the old feature.

singularity87 said,
There is some logic to that - in an increasing number of cases the job that was being done by a radio can be done better by a mobile internet connection. It won't be that long before it's all cases. Including a component that is superseded by another feature isn't the way to go when you want to control things like size and battery life.

It is a significant trade off though and it sucks for people who really depend on the old feature.


Personally I fail to see how using my data plan, which I pay for, to stream music from some provider , which again I have to pay for, is better than free FM from a customer standpoint.
For carriers and companies offering the streaming of course the advantages are obvious.

There is no logic. Word is that they didn't finish it in time whilst wanting to give users a more robust radio. WP7s radio was alright but it wasn't "rich".