Windows 10X could be delayed until 2021 and debut without Win32 support

nanoguy

Posts: 517   +7
Staff member
The big picture: Microsoft's plans for Windows 10X development had already been derailed by the pandemic, but now it looks like the company is willing to slow down the cadence of Windows 10 feature updates to accelerate development on Windows 10X. That means we'll have to wait until Spring 2021 at the earliest before we can run it on an actual device.

Microsoft originally aimed to debut Windows 10X on dual-screen devices like the Surface Neo, but eventually decided to adapt it so that it may also work on single-screen PCs. Releasing the Surface Neo during the pandemic would have been risky, and the core Windows 10X project may not have been ready for prime time after all.

According to ZDNet's Mary Jo Foley, Microsoft is planning to reveal the first single-screen devices powered by Windows 10X sometime during the spring of 2021. These PCs will mostly be aimed at the business and education markets, and the operating system won't include support for running Win32 apps in containers.

The second wave of Windows 10X devices will reportedly arrive a year after that and will include dual-screen PCs. At this point it's not clear whether Microsoft scrapped its Win32 container project because of performance or compatibility issues.

However, the company did reveal earlier this year that it is pooling its developers towards making a cloud-based layer for Windows 10X that will allow users to work and play in new ways. To that end, Microsoft may change the cadence of feature updates from two every year to just one every spring. If you've been following our coverage since last year, Windows 10 updates have been plagued by bugs and inconsistencies.

Meanwhile, if we look at what the Redmond giant has been doing with Windows 10X, the original plan was laid out to become a "Lite" and more modular version of the operating system that would directly compete with Google's Chrome OS, which has been well received in the education market, however those plans may have morphed into something else.

Where Windows 10S failed, Windows 10X could succeed by having a simple and coherent UI design, updates that install in minutes, and support for Win32 apps and games. If the new report is accurate, this functionality wouldn't arrive until 2022 at the earliest.

Permalink to story.

 

p51d007

Posts: 2,440   +1,710
They can't even release a update, without needing a bunch of patches, to fix the update.
 

candle_86

Posts: 396   +297
No thanks, I don't want an is that kills access to 90% of my games and software,and honestly I can't see enterprise or education markets going for it either, it's to restrictive, espically if the win32 container is scrapped.

Honestly anyone asking for 32bit programs to not work is living in a dream world, enterprises have alot of internal programs that work fine, as do schools, and arbitrarily removing the WoW64 engine is the dumbest move they could make.

This also applied to home users, games only went 64bit 3-4 years ago, that means popular games will stop working for an arbitrary reason, this will cause a support nightmare.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BSim500

SixTymes

Posts: 36   +17
Took them long enough to finally consider the idea to get rid of 32bit support. having 32bit on a 64bit system is like OS bloatware.
 

ET3D

Posts: 1,707   +352
I can't see enterprise or education markets going for it either, it's to restrictive, espically if the win32 container is scrapped.
On the contrary, it's mainly the home market which will suffer. Education clearly had no problem accepting an OS with very little software and no compatibility with Windows - Chrome OS. Enterprise is geared to running specific pieces of software, and if the applications they need will run on the new OS, then not being able to install a bunch of old software could even be seen as a benefit.

For many home users, who tend to use an eclectic collection of software that's been accumulated over the years, compatibility is quite important.
 

SixTymes

Posts: 36   +17
MOVE FORWARD, at some point you have to cut the cord of 32bit, GET ON WITH IT ALREADY. and to all you slow thinkers, at what point is it OK then to let go, in another 20 years? You would still complain ***** and moan as you are today. You never change.
 

BSim500

Posts: 683   +1,404
MOVE FORWARD, at some point you have to cut the cord of 32bit, GET ON WITH IT ALREADY. and to all you slow thinkers, at what point is it OK then to let go, in another 20 years? You would still complain ***** and moan as you are today. You never change.
Meanwhile back in the real world something like +25,000 out of 30,000 games on Steam and 3,750 out of 4,000 games on GOG are 32-bit, MSI Afterburner is 32-bit, many emulators are 32-bit, etc. If I wanted a device that played only the last 4-5 years of games for arbitrarily crippled locked-down OS reasons, I'd go buy a console...

Edit: Likewise most people with above average IQ's are capable of seeing Microsoft's long-term dream (locking out Steam / GOG games via killing off "legacy" Win32 and pushing people to a UWP only world sold through the Microsoft Store) benefits only Microsoft, certainly not the gaming community as a whole.
 
Last edited:

candle_86

Posts: 396   +297
On the contrary, it's mainly the home market which will suffer. Education clearly had no problem accepting an OS with very little software and no compatibility with Windows - Chrome OS. Enterprise is geared to running specific pieces of software, and if the applications they need will run on the new OS, then not being able to install a bunch of old software could even be seen as a benefit.

For many home users, who tend to use an eclectic collection of software that's been accumulated over the years, compatibility is quite important.
Because chrome os didn't come with expectations actually. A teacher will see windows and expect it to do certain things,the same wasn't true of chrome os.

MOVE FORWARD, at some point you have to cut the cord of 32bit, GET ON WITH IT ALREADY. and to all you slow thinkers, at what point is it OK then to let go, in another 20 years? You would still complain ***** and moan as you are today. You never change.
You don't understand this at all do you. Right now I can go install 32bit windows 10 2004 and then launch reversi from Windows 1.0, that's a 1985 16bit executable, that's thanks to the original WoW layer introduced in Windows NT. The reason this still exists isn't because they forgot to remove it, it's because hospitals, factories, universities, ECT all have millions of dollars in legacy equipment that they can't afford to replace, and the latest version of the control software was written in Dos or Windows 95 and is a 16bit program, because that control program likely only needs 256-2mb of ram.

Now these companies understand where they are at and continue to use 32bit.


Now let's look at a problem with WoW64 gone. Legal departments often have to review old files, these could be 20 year old files written under legacy office, it could be a legacy access database. Right now alot of legal departments will have Office 97 installed to support access and excel 95/97 files that don't open right in newer versions. They likely also have office 2003/2007 for accessing files created their as some macros and formatting lost support as time went on. Now these programs are 32bit. Now windows 10x is a great idea on the surface for legal, they spend days in a court room, can't always charge their laptops, but now they are locked out of viewing legacy files that may be important to their case. This also applied to accountants and he departments, and even sometimes to digital graphics if they need to access legacy assests for any reason.

This is why your idea is stupid, right now under certain laws in certain industries, your required to retain documents for up to 30 years or more and you sometimes need those documents and databases. When you've worked corporate support then your opinion matters
 
Last edited:

ET3D

Posts: 1,707   +352
Because chrome os didn't come with expectations actually. A teacher will see windows and expect it to do certain things,the same wasn't true of chrome os.
I doubt it. If a school can make do with Chrome, it could certainly make do with Windows x64. There is still a lot more Windows x64 software, and such schools will likely use Microsoft software anyway, such as Office 365, which is x64.

As for the rest of your comment, many companies don't need this. Those who have such limitations often stick to older OSs. That's why Microsoft still has paid support for Windows 7. And while 'certain industries' might need these old OSs, IBM for example has transitioned to Macs over the years, because of their lower cost of ownership and supposedly also higher productivity. And Apple has already junked 32-bit.
 

candle_86

Posts: 396   +297
I doubt it. If a school can make do with Chrome, it could certainly make do with Windows x64. There is still a lot more Windows x64 software, and such schools will likely use Microsoft software anyway, such as Office 365, which is x64.

As for the rest of your comment, many companies don't need this. Those who have such limitations often stick to older OSs. That's why Microsoft still has paid support for Windows 7. And while 'certain industries' might need these old OSs, IBM for example has transitioned to Macs over the years, because of their lower cost of ownership and supposedly also higher productivity. And Apple has already junked 32-bit.
How many corporations have you worked for in support? I can say the company I'm with right now doesn't have million dollar equipment but we still need 32bit support for.

Time clock system (custom written 15yrs ago still works fine on windows 10 and does it's job)
Hr database (custom database built on SQL 10 years ago, it is currently coded in 32bit)
Inventory tracking sysyem (IBM product no longer made been in use for 20+ years, devs we hired patched it for windows 10, not possible to port to 64bit though)

Those are 3 bigger internal systems we have and there are many more prices of custom written internal software, or software we bought that works fine. Replacing it all isn't economical plus we'd have to retrain staff which productivity, and for no benefit.
 

jpuroila

Posts: 196   +99
Meanwhile back in the real world something like +25,000 out of 30,000 games on Steam and 3,750 out of 4,000 games on GOG are 32-bit, MSI Afterburner is 32-bit, many emulators are 32-bit, etc. If I wanted a device that played only the last 4-5 years of games for arbitrarily crippled locked-down OS reasons, I'd go buy a console...

Edit: Likewise most people with above average IQ's are capable of seeing Microsoft's long-term dream (locking out Steam / GOG games via killing off "legacy" Win32 and pushing people to a UWP only world sold through the Microsoft Store) benefits only Microsoft, certainly not the gaming community as a whole.
It's even worse than that, since many games that are nominally 64-bit still have 32-bit components.
 

ET3D

Posts: 1,707   +352
Those are 3 bigger internal systems we have
Thanks for the detailed account. I found it interesting. I did see in the past people even working with DOS systems (though that was years ago, probably around the time of Windows 7).

I didn't say there wasn't need, but Microsoft would likely keep both Windows 10 and 10X on the market, in the same way that it still offers Windows 7 support and security updates to enterprises.

Going back and reading SixTymes' message you responded to, your response was to the point. We have no argument. I originally said: "Enterprise is geared to running specific pieces of software, and if the applications they need will run on the new OS, then not being able to install a bunch of old software could even be seen as a benefit." I still think it's a fair assessment.
 

cliffordcooley

Posts: 12,355   +5,769
I feel as if 32bit compatibility needs to be removed as a default option. But removing it completely would only make migration to the new OS slow. We need an option where we can install this compatibility layer when needed.

Removing the default 32-bit compatibility would give developers a push to 64. While also allowing those who need the compatibility an option to install it.
 

candle_86

Posts: 396   +297
Thanks for the detailed account. I found it interesting. I did see in the past people even working with DOS systems (though that was years ago, probably around the time of Windows 7).

I didn't say there wasn't need, but Microsoft would likely keep both Windows 10 and 10X on the market, in the same way that it still offers Windows 7 support and security updates to enterprises.

Going back and reading SixTymes' message you responded to, your response was to the point. We have no argument. I originally said: "Enterprise is geared to running specific pieces of software, and if the applications they need will run on the new OS, then not being able to install a bunch of old software could even be seen as a benefit." I still think it's a fair assessment.
It's fair but to me this will be an utter failure for Microsoft kind of like windows s was. The few people that I know bought it, immediately went out and bought the upgrade and at least one used a key from the families old windows 7 desktop after some light googling.
 

ET3D

Posts: 1,707   +352
It's fair but to me this will be an utter failure for Microsoft kind of like windows s was. The few people that I know bought it, immediately went out and bought the upgrade and at least one used a key from the families old windows 7 desktop after some light googling.
I don't think it'd be as bad as Windows S. There's a very big difference between being locked to the Windows store (and Edge) and being limited to 64-bit software. Most modern software is 64-bit. The latest games are 64-bit and up to date productivity software is 64-bit. 64-bit has been here for a while, so it's normally possible to find 64-bit versions of most software. Sure, not everything has 64-bit versions, and Microsoft is definitely losing one of the greatest strengths of Windows, backward compatibility, but it's still far from being that bad.