I know the results are going to be biased a bit since I'm on a "Android" forum.
What do you think of the upcoming WinMo 7. The commercials make me really want to sell my HTC Legend for a Samsung Focus. With the tiles, hubs, and other nice stuff. Also, the delay of 2.2 update got me pretty pissed about Android.
Windows Phone 7 does look nice with a slick interface, but you have to bear with the almost same walled garden as Apple, Windows Phone 7 is a less controlled wall garden compared to Apple.
__________________
Dedicated Android Fan!
Samsung Fan too!
Win Phone 7 has potential but I think they've got a long way to go in order to get back into the mainstream of smartphones. Certain aspects of Win Phone 7 look good but other aspects look cheesey as all get out...
__________________ Yea though I walk through the Valley of Google I shall fear no Apple...
Advice provided comes from fellow Android enthusiasts. We're not tech support. Please do your due dilligence before implementing! And if someone helped you, please share the love with the button...
The Following User Says Thank You to Martimus For This Useful Post:
My feeling about Android vs. WP7 are the last 3 posts...
__________________
The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.
Well, you are better off with Windows Phone 7 than iOS if you prefer these two OS.
However, I still prefer Android for it's wide array of customizations without hacking the OS first.
I disagree at this point, only because WP7 is way to immature at this point to compete on a lot of fronts. Yes there will be a good amount of apps at launch, but nothing compared to Android or iOS. There's no multitasking or fast app switching. Given iOS' multitasking solution is not as good as Android or webOS, it's better than the non-existant implementation from WP7. No copy and paste (I realize this has been promised to arrive in early 2011, but as of now, it's not there), no custom ringtones, etc. I think WP7 could be a very great platform, but in its current iteration I cannot say it's better than iOS.
Well, I don't like how iOS locks down most of the stuff, it seems Windows Phone 7 is almost the same, except it is a bit less tight lock down compared to iOS..
However, iOS and Android had a lot of apps so currently iOS and Android is a great choice if you want apps.
Device(s): Nexus One (CM7), Limited Edition Google I/O Galaxy Tab 10.1 [Phandroid Contest Winner]
Thanks: 56
Thanked 32 Times in 25 Posts
First let me state that it's way to soon to tell. Sure you can be an "early adopter" but those generally get screwed. It's the price of being an early adopter. There's no proof that updates won't go arry.
-The other aspect is people think this whole "hubs, tiles, and minimalism" is so attractive and going to save them so much time! To me it looks crappy. If that's why you're buying the phone, you can get an android phone and just theme it...Sure it might not be as polished as it, but those things really aren't features.
-WP7 really doesn't have much going for it, no multitasking, no copy+paste, the same problem as android with the lack of apps in terms of competing with iOS.
-No custom ringtones? WTF!?!?
-There aren't really ANY high end WP7 devices. They all have like snapdragons...wtf?
-It's just way to soon to tell. But Microsoft has been failing for so long...how do we know this will be any different?
The Following User Says Thank You to MJM128 For This Useful Post:
Device(s): Nexus S (rooted), CM 7.1 with Caelum theme.
Thanks: 44
Thanked 78 Times in 57 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ashykat
I disagree at this point, only because WP7 is way to immature at this point to compete on a lot of fronts. Yes there will be a good amount of apps at launch, but nothing compared to Android or iOS. There's no multitasking or fast app switching. Given iOS' multitasking solution is not as good as Android or webOS, it's better than the non-existant implementation from WP7. No copy and paste (I realize this has been promised to arrive in early 2011, but as of now, it's not there), no custom ringtones, etc. I think WP7 could be a very great platform, but in its current iteration I cannot say it's better than iOS.
With those kinds of weaknesses, it's even worse that iOS. At least iOS can do all of the things mentioned. The minimalist look may appeal to some, but I feel that it's actually too oversimplified. I'm not sold on it. Is it a better OS than Android? Not by a long shot. iOS? Perhaps, but we'll have to see if MS adds in a lot of the missing features in 2011. Just like Android took some time to get up and running (about 2 years), I expect the same with MS, but they have about half as much time as Android. I give them a year or so to work out the weaknesses. Microsoft has been in the OS business a long time so they have no excuse for slow poking around with a weak mobile OS.
On the positive side, the WP7 hardware that has been coming out has been very slick. Excellent specs (on par with high end Android and iPhone 4) and very beautiful hardware design. I wish Android had some of the hardware that WP7 is getting.
-WP7 really doesn't have much going for it, no multitasking, no copy+paste, the same problem as android with the lack of apps in terms of competing with iOS.
I don't agree with Android having lack of apps compared to iOS.
Android Market is growing rapidly now since Android had a larger market share worldwide.
And most of the apps on App Store had a counterpart in the Android Market, so there are almost no lack of apps.
With those kinds of weaknesses, it's even worse that iOS. At least iOS can do all of the things mentioned. The minimalist look may appeal to some, but I feel that it's actually too oversimplified. I'm not sold on it. Is it a better OS than Android? Not by a long shot. iOS? Perhaps, but we'll have to see if MS adds in a lot of the missing features in 2011. Just like Android took some time to get up and running (about 2 years), I expect the same with MS, but they have about half as much time as Android. I give them a year or so to work out the weaknesses. Microsoft has been in the OS business a long time so they have no excuse for slow poking around with a weak mobile OS.
On the positive side, the WP7 hardware that has been coming out has been very slick. Excellent specs (on par with high end Android and iPhone 4) and very beautiful hardware design. I wish Android had some of the hardware that WP7 is getting.
i disagree with you... they do not need 2 yrs like android to get up and running! They have had many versions of phone OS for years... this is version 7!!!!!!! Android was first released 2 years ago!
hardware spec is high.. because from all the past windows phone OS.. it is very hardware hungry (not efficient).. so that it dont look laggy and slow. Android can run on half the hardware spec.
The Following User Says Thank You to dan330 For This Useful Post:
My feeling about Android vs. WP7 are the last 3 posts...
speaking about their commercials...
getting you off your phone and back to life..
something like that....
sounds to me....that the phones will be...
boring
not as useful
not as fun
not as engaging
so.. that you dont spend to much time on them.
i think it is a silly slogan
The Following User Says Thank You to dan330 For This Useful Post:
Device(s): Nexus One (CM7), Limited Edition Google I/O Galaxy Tab 10.1 [Phandroid Contest Winner]
Thanks: 56
Thanked 32 Times in 25 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by PinkMirrorKirby
I don't agree with Android having lack of apps compared to iOS.
Android Market is growing rapidly now since Android had a larger market share worldwide.
And most of the apps on App Store had a counterpart in the Android Market, so there are almost no lack of apps.
First, I meant comparing it to when android launched compared to iOS at the time. And secondly there still are apps that are on iOS that either better or simply....just there. I mean there are plenty of alternatives, but examples are like facebook for android vs iphone, or simply popular developers not going over to android. For some people it matters, to others (like me) android is what I want, and I don't care other than game apps what apps iOS has.
Device(s): Nexus S (rooted), CM 7.1 with Caelum theme.
Thanks: 44
Thanked 78 Times in 57 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by dan330
i disagree with you... they do not need 2 yrs like android to get up and running! They have had many versions of phone OS for years... this is version 7!!!!!!! Android was first released 2 years ago!
hardware spec is high.. because from all the past windows phone OS.. it is very hardware hungry (not efficient).. so that it dont look laggy and slow. Android can run on half the hardware spec.
I think you misinterpret me. Android took 2 years from Cupcake to Froyo to become a stable OS. The earlier versions were quite buggy (especially 1.5 and 1.6). What I mean with WP7 is that it isn't a reiteration of 6.5. MS went back to scratch to try and tackle what was wrong with 6.5 and earlier. They are already off to a bad start with no copy/paste, etc. and if they want to compete with the current mobile OS market, they need to iron things out quickly.
A better analogy is to think how buggy and performance weak XP was when it first came out. By the time SP3 was released, it had reached a point of stability and reliability that most businesses didn't want to upgrade when the next version came out (and some still haven't).
While Windows is a hardware hungry OS, by setting a precedent on the minimum specs, they can avoid weak performing phones. This is a problem with Android as many handset makers crank out low end Android phones that can't adequately demonstrate the true potential of the OS. This in turn leads to bad experiences (as well as handset makers still churning out older versions of Android furthering fragmentation issues) and will likely drive new users away.
However, from the overall appearance of the OS and the lack of multitasking, one would wonder why MS needs such high end specs since it doesn't seem like it would be very CPU intensive. My only guess would be the first "service pack" for WP7 will implement many of these key missing features as the release had been delayed for so long that MS realized they need to release an incomplete OS rather than wait while Android completely overwhelms the mobile market.
The interface looks like a boxed-up rip-off of Android's "Slide-Screen". I highly doubt customization of the interface of ANY kind will be allowed (we all knows what a hassle it is to mod their computer OS's, just like Apple). The apps will be limited to what is approved by Microsoft. Windows OS's have always poorly utilized hardware, something that Apple does extremely well (which is why their OS and iOS run so flawlessly).
I think the funniest thing is that Microsoft released the Kin phone, the ultimate "tie your life to your phone" device, based solely on the idea of being glued to your phone. Now that that has failed, they're releasing a phone that will "save us from our phones". Hahaha.
It seems like they're going an easy route. Windows 7 Phone is seemingly intended to keep people from spending time on their phones. So.... if we don't want to spend time on our phones, we don't need apps, customization, and heck if it doesn't work well, we'll just use it less! ...which is the point!! ...right!?
I think it's a joke. The only think I like is the highly integrated home screen, which I can achieve on my android with just as many limitations as I'm sure the W7P will have.
To me it's an unproven OS at this point. It could be a huge, gigantic hit or it could be an epic fail. At this point we don't know. I would wait.
Exactly! Win Phone 7 is a brand new OS. It's not an evolution of Win Mo 6.5... they scrapped that and started new. As for hardware, the phones look to be running with Snapdragons which aren't exactly slow processors. Many Android phones are currently running equivalent processors.
I'm gonna bide my time with Win Phone 7. While I have no desire to own one, it might just surprise us with it's integration to Zune and XBox. Microsoft has a history of pulling rabbits out of hats. Of course anyone remembering Microsoft Bob knows that they've also tanked a few products too. I think I'm going to "wait and see"...
The phone is not built for geeks its an entry level phone, its for those without smart phones who want to start using smart phones. For those who want a smart phone that is simple and clean.
Last edited by iavswn; November 20th, 2010 at 04:24 PM.
My biggest red flag with Win 7 Phone is that it is not launching with copy and paste. In this day and age how can you afford to try and compete without such a necesary utility? I am aware other OS's didn't launch with this feature. Had Win 7 Phone launched alongside them I might be a little more forgiving.
__________________
"A dog is the only thing on earth that loves you more than you love yourself" - Josh Billings
Not to forget too, it has windows, IE, etc.. native, which have been very, very buggy and insecure over the years and still are.
Windows in an of itself has had some bad releases, but the last three were just fine. People having trouble with any of these were probably either having hardware troubles or just plain didn't know what they were doing. I am no expert coder, but I do know my way around Windows more than the average PC user. I have owned every version post XP and have never had issues. I really think that Windows gets most of it's bad rep from crap hardware not working right.
Now if we talk about Windows ME... wait... let's not... too painful!
The Following User Says Thank You to lordofthereef For This Useful Post:
Exactly! Win Phone 7 is a brand new OS. It's not an evolution of Win Mo 6.5... they scrapped that and started new. As for hardware, the phones look to be running with Snapdragons which aren't exactly slow processors. Many Android phones are currently running equivalent processors.
I'm gonna bide my time with Win Phone 7. While I have no desire to own one, it might just surprise us with it's integration to Zune and XBox. Microsoft has a history of pulling rabbits out of hats. Of course anyone remembering Microsoft Bob knows that they've also tanked a few products too. I think I'm going to "wait and see"...
A faster processor is nice, but to check email, send text messages, surf the web, etc.. there really is no advantage.
It does not exist on verizon either so what's the point? Even if its a nice phone you'll still be getting crappy service.
It should be launching on virtually all carriers by the summer. FWIW ATT isn't all bad for EVERYONE. I have had more trouble with Verizon and TMoblie than ATT in my history of owning phones.
Sure there is. All those apps potentially load faster!
First, You don't need a 1 ghz or better cpu to load in less than 5 seconds an app that's only kilobytes in size. The app is not even large enough to create a bottle neck.
Second, The issue of heat with smart phones that have ghz cpus has not been totally worked out. For example, the Motorola droid2s which typically overheat and freeze up.
Windows in an of itself has had some bad releases, but the last three were just fine. People having trouble with any of these were probably either having hardware troubles or just plain didn't know what they were doing. I am no expert coder, but I do know my way around Windows more than the average PC user. I have owned every version post XP and have never had issues. I really think that Windows gets most of it's bad rep from crap hardware not working right.
Now if we talk about Windows ME... wait... let's not... too painful!
Device(s): HTC Desire Z, Asus Eee Pad Transformer with Keyboard Dock
Thanks: 107
Thanked 203 Times in 171 Posts
The concept of hubs is interesting, but I'm not convinced it is significantly better than things are now. Yeah, you can scroll through all of your contacts and see what everyone's updates from FB and Twitter are, but I don't find this to be an efficient way of keeping up. The concept of having all of these updates together may sound good, but in practice, I look at FB for different reasons than Twitter. I either want FB updates or Twitter, but not both all mashed together.
As for my Android phone, I love spending time on it. It's such a pleasure to use that I want to use it more and spend more time on it. In fact, it seems like my Android phone can already do things that a WP7 phone can do.
My first impression about WP7 is that it looks ugly. Big square boxes that are not even centred. I'm generally one who cares more about function over form. For me to say it looks ugly, it must be really ugly. There's some artistic value for having a symmetrical interface.
I do give WP7 credit for having interesting animations when you select something. However, those animations of the boxes going away like how a page in a book turns seems to take some time. If WP7 is supposed to save me time, forget about the animations and just get me to the next screen quickly.
Right now, I don't see the WP7 campaign to be really making much sense. I find the commercials funny, but they don't really tell me any features about WP7 that make me want it. For whatever reason, I'm just not swept up by the hype. I'm looking for some specifics and so far, what I've seen are a mix of things that are good, not so good and really ugly.
I'm going to go back on my Android phone now. I'm sitting comfortably on my couch, so there's no danger of me running into anyone.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Stuntman For This Useful Post:
"I've had my Samsung Focus for one week now, and in my opinion, the phone nor WP7 are ready for primetime.
Pros:
- Superb user experience, great screen control.
- Integration created by Boxes is the best I have encountered to pull all applications together.
- Bright, clear, and eye-catching screen
- Large font and icons were very easy to see
- Integration to Outlook, Google and Yahoo were seamless and reliable
- Best calendar I have used
Cons:
- No message indicator lights, You have to wake the phone continuously to know if you have any calls, message or emails which drains on the battery.
- When receiving a call, you have to swipe the screen to get the option to accept call. Why is it so difficult to actually take a call?
- While on a call more than your set screen time, you have to wake the phone to swipe the screen to end the call.
- Accessing options while on call is very inconvenient.
- Can not control the alarm times. You will get waken up all night with message alarms if you want the phone in the same room.
- Shuts down for no reason. Received "Goodbye" message at least once daily.
- Battery time is unacceptable. 5-6 hours maximum while not using, much less if actually using the unit.
- Why is YouTube loaded if you cant even play most of the videos (no flash)?
- Once connected to bluetooth, you can not send the call back to handset (only options: speaker, mute, hold, add call)
- Landscape only available in some applications (ex. Facebook)
- Very limited applications. The applications that are available are not integrated and must be started (for example GoVoice for Google Voice only provides messages if you open the app and wait to load).
- Not for medium to large hands, the keyboard is very small and the majority of messages needed corrections
- Must use sidebar button to take pictures, which is nearly unusable with a thin phone skin
- The "Windows Certified" microSD card is a bunch of BS, card not swappable and must buy specific models that no one can seem to get a list of.
- Bluetooth will not discover my Jawbone ICON. It work's fine for my Kenwood car stereo."
__________________
Check me at @Guamguy in Twitter
Last edited by Guamguy; November 21st, 2010 at 06:11 AM.
Windows in an of itself has had some bad releases, but the last three were just fine. People having trouble with any of these were probably either having hardware troubles or just plain didn't know what they were doing. I am no expert coder, but I do know my way around Windows more than the average PC user. I have owned every version post XP and have never had issues. I really think that Windows gets most of it's bad rep from crap hardware not working right.
Now if we talk about Windows ME... wait... let's not... too painful!
Overall I agree, Windows gets a bad rap. Their problem is they make software only so unlike Apple they cannot control the environment that they are interacting with which can cause problems with cheap hardware and of course people then blame MS. I will not agree that the past 3 have been fine. XP was very solid and 7 seems to be mostly OK but Vista was a bucketful of issues and is very similar to the ME release IMO. I am not a huge fan of some of their UI decisions on 7 but it has been going well for me. I have both Apple and PC computers in my house and I use PC's regularly at my work.
- Battery time is unacceptable. 5-6 hours maximum while not using,
Looking at the spec sheet, a 1500 mAh battery and the talk time is 6.5 hours...battery life on that phone is bad...The Droid X with a 1540 mAh battery the talk time is 8-9 hours..
Spec sheet says its using the older Snapdragon, where the newer one should help with battery life...
This is the problem I have with MS and some of the WP7 phones having the older Snapdragon in em and the phone being marketed as high end. That Snapdragon is on its way out as being current, so why use em?
My take on Vista: When it first came out I had problems with my MBR getting wiped out, problems with running apps, etc...I installed a 32bit one on HP PC a few years old.
I installed Vista 64bit on a PC I had custom built about a year later....no issues at all. Vista also had updates that made it more stable around that time too. So much so I got Win 7 at launch and still havent installed it yet.
So I would agree that even with Vista the hardware played a part in its bad rap.
Last edited by jroc; November 21st, 2010 at 08:39 AM.
Device(s): Galaxy S II,
Captivate,
Nexus 1 (retired),
Nook Color,
Asus Transformer.
Thanks: 2,607
Thanked 5,146 Times in 3,019 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Alien
Overall I agree, Windows gets a bad rap ... I will not agree that the past 3 have been fine ...Vista was a bucketful of issues and is very similar to the ME release IMO.
Here is where a bit of an education is necessary (once again). Vista was a "bucketful of issues” because people are reactionary confrontational idiots jumping up and down like screeching monkeys ready to point their banana of blame at anyone or anything for their own deficiencies.
Vista wasn’t well received more as a matter of perception than one of technology, as well as Microsoft trying too hard to accommodate manufacturers, vendors and distributors. The problems were threefold.
From a user standpoint, Vista [Aero] represented a huge cosmetic change and people, who had pretty much grown up on XP were presented with an OS that “didn’t work right” even though much of what Vista brought was more efficient and better integrated into the OS. People resist change even if it is a change for the better.
Then there was the widely reported issue of major driver incompatibility or failures. The driver issue should have been laid squarely at the feet of hardware vendors who had the time, information and responsibility to provide working drivers for their products. Unfortunately, MS had a history of allowing poorly coded drivers to have access to levels of the OS they shouldn’t have, so with XP, many vendors took shortcuts that went directly against Microsoft’s API programming recommendations. The Vista RTM enforced those recommendations and broke the crappy drivers. Vendors knew this, but I suppose they believed that MS would back down at the last minute. Or, they hoped this would happen, forcing the consumer with legacy hardware to purchase upgrades that had properly working drivers. The vendors themselves were deflecting the blame to MS as a way to maintain a good image and still make money. Kudos to MS for not backing down, and shame on MS for not enforcing those rules a long time ago.
Then there was the moaning about security. It goes without saying that people hate UAC. But those same people are the ones that need it most and understand it least. It’s really an instance of MS trying to protect users from themselves and users figuring out ways to be stupid and still being able to point the blame elsewhere.
The biggest blunder, IMHO was the “Vista Capable” certification. It was simply lowering the bar so vendors could move a lot of old inventory. Again, they knew Vista was coming and had plenty of time to deplete old inventory prior to the release, but people were clamoring for the ever-cheaper PC so cutting corners was a matter of course. Putting Vista on a P4 with 512MB of RAM is crazy, but they did it and pissed off a lot of users who couldn’t run Aero … or run it well.
There were performance issues with network file copying, which were quickly addressed addressed, but a small glitch does not negate everything in an OS.
It’s obvious the critics didn’t help dispel any of the misconceptions about Vista or explain the necessity of the increased overhead but that’s really no surprise. Nor is it surprising that the general populace rallied around this seeming failure of a big company perceived as a tyrant. The press did what they always do … they pandered to their audience, and the audience applauded in ignorance.
Vista was, and is a highly stable, very usable OS and should not in any way be compared to Windows ME, which was, on the disaster scale, somewhere between the Hindenburg and the Titanic.
Vista was, and is a highly stable, very usable OS and should not in any way be compared to Windows ME, which was, on the disaster scale, somewhere between the Hindenburg and the Titanic.
All I know is that I was a long time XP user and I got my son a laptop with Vista. It was constantly having issues, sparked pop ups for every single action you took, behaved poorly between the admin and user accounts, was laggy and seemed to need constant reboots. Dell gave us a free upgrade to 7 and I did it ASAP. Ever since the same laptop has been extremely stable and the onslaught of pop ups that Vista had have been removed. No issues since. So that was from my experience and reviews I have seen of people with the same issues. It was an interim OS rushed to market and it showed.
The iPhone - did it not come out on June 29, 2007? That was just over 3 years ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dan330
i disagree with you... they do not need 2 yrs like android to get up and running! They have had many versions of phone OS for years... this is version 7!!!!!!! Android was first released 2 years ago!
hardware spec is high.. because from all the past windows phone OS.. it is very hardware hungry (not efficient).. so that it dont look laggy and slow. Android can run on half the hardware spec.
__________________
Sprint Evo in Paradise! High taxes also, higher next year.
There are more than a few of us who are exceedingly versed with Windows and its many different flavors. You really need to do a bit more homework on its various "issues." Vista did bunches of things nicely, but stability was never one of them. In stability it ranked just a little ahead of 98 and that was just plain awful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lunatic59
Here is where a bit of an education is necessary (once again). Vista was a "bucketful of issues” because people are reactionary confrontational idiots jumping up and down like screeching monkeys ready to point their banana of blame at anyone or anything for their own deficiencies.
Vista wasn’t well received more as a matter of perception than one of technology, as well as Microsoft trying too hard to accommodate manufacturers, vendors and distributors. The problems were threefold.
From a user standpoint, Vista [Aero] represented a huge cosmetic change and people, who had pretty much grown up on XP were presented with an OS that “didn’t work right” even though much of what Vista brought was more efficient and better integrated into the OS. People resist change even if it is a change for the better.
Then there was the widely reported issue of major driver incompatibility or failures. The driver issue should have been laid squarely at the feet of hardware vendors who had the time, information and responsibility to provide working drivers for their products. Unfortunately, MS had a history of allowing poorly coded drivers to have access to levels of the OS they shouldn’t have, so with XP, many vendors took shortcuts that went directly against Microsoft’s API programming recommendations. The Vista RTM enforced those recommendations and broke the crappy drivers. Vendors knew this, but I suppose they believed that MS would back down at the last minute. Or, they hoped this would happen, forcing the consumer with legacy hardware to purchase upgrades that had properly working drivers. The vendors themselves were deflecting the blame to MS as a way to maintain a good image and still make money. Kudos to MS for not backing down, and shame on MS for not enforcing those rules a long time ago.
Then there was the moaning about security. It goes without saying that people hate UAC. But those same people are the ones that need it most and understand it least. It’s really an instance of MS trying to protect users from themselves and users figuring out ways to be stupid and still being able to point the blame elsewhere.
The biggest blunder, IMHO was the “Vista Capable” certification. It was simply lowering the bar so vendors could move a lot of old inventory. Again, they knew Vista was coming and had plenty of time to deplete old inventory prior to the release, but people were clamoring for the ever-cheaper PC so cutting corners was a matter of course. Putting Vista on a P4 with 512MB of RAM is crazy, but they did it and pissed off a lot of users who couldn’t run Aero … or run it well.
There were performance issues with network file copying, which were quickly addressed addressed, but a small glitch does not negate everything in an OS.
It’s obvious the critics didn’t help dispel any of the misconceptions about Vista or explain the necessity of the increased overhead but that’s really no surprise. Nor is it surprising that the general populace rallied around this seeming failure of a big company perceived as a tyrant. The press did what they always do … they pandered to their audience, and the audience applauded in ignorance.
Vista was, and is a highly stable, very usable OS and should not in any way be compared to Windows ME, which was, on the disaster scale, somewhere between the Hindenburg and the Titanic.
Looking at the spec sheet, a 1500 mAh battery and the talk time is 6.5 hours...battery life on that phone is bad...The Droid X with a 1540 mAh battery the talk time is 8-9 hours..
Spec sheet says its using the older Snapdragon, where the newer one should help with battery life...
This is the problem I have with MS and some of the WP7 phones having the older Snapdragon in em and the phone being marketed as high end. That Snapdragon is on its way out as being current, so why use em?
The reason why WP7 is stuck with the older Snapdragon is the reason why the UI appears so fluid and smooth.
The graphics libraries are hard coded against the GPU, so optimized in fact, it may not be easily scalable. Every time is so synchronized to a certain speed that going faster or slower screws up everything. Do you understand why game consoles cannot go faster or slower? Because games are so written to set processing and GPU speed, they're not very scalable.
This is the reason why WP7 is not using the newer Snapdragons with the Adreno 205, why they're not using Samsung's Hummingbird, why they're not using Texas Instrument OMAP6.
Because WP7 supports only a Qualcomm, expect Samsung (despite the alleged BS that claims Samsung will put out more WP7 sets than others) to deemphasize WP7 in favor of Android and Bada, since Android and Bada are capable of supporting Samsung made chipsets not just Hummingbird, but the recently announced Orion. Samsung has been positioning itself increasingly as Qualcomm's competitor.
Watched how nVidia changed its tunes, its CEO once praised MSFT for the Zune HD supporting the Tegra. Now they are all praise to Google and Andy Rubin since obviously WP7 has left the Tegra 2 out, leaving Tegra 2 to bet its chances with Android. This does not escape both LG and Motorola, who are planning Android devices with Tegra 2.
Its one reason why Motorola, in bed with using TI OMAP, is reluctant in using WP7. Know who also uses the OMAP chips? Nokia.
Its also the same reason why WP7 isn't on ARM11 chipsets, leaving the growing low and middle end market.
If you have an OS that has to support different chipsets, you have two ways to pursue it.
1.) Go open source and "fragment" the kernel. That means each separate vendor and chipset maker can take the OS code and make their own version of the OS suited to their chipset, without adding code support for another chipset.
This is what is happening to Android.
2.) Stay closed and create a monolithic kernel to support all chipsets in one giant OS. This is the Windows model. The end result of this is that you end up with an OS running on a given piece of hardware, loaded with stuff intended to run on all sorts of different hardware that is never used. The end result of this model is a maintenance mess and the more hardware has to be supported, the greater the mess becomes. It will reach to a point that the OS will suffer serious performance issues, and the only way to fix that is clean out the extraneous code out of the OS by greatly subtracting hardware support to only a few strategic platforms. Preferably one.
This happened to Windows Mobile. It happened to Windows Vista. The clean up model is Windows 7 and Windows Phone 7. But the cycle can begin again and still create a mess down the road.
Once your hardware support list gets longer, so is your testing and development cycles. Again, you see this with Windows, which has long development and testing cycles.
Microsoft is trying to make a game console environment out of mobile. As you know, game consoles have static specs that have a very long life. Xbox 360 has the same spec up to know since its introduction back when?
Games are the most unscalable of all software and if the platform maker (Apple, Microsoft, Sony, whoever) decides to emphasize games in their platform, they're trapping themselves in a corner in the future because its difficult to improve your hardware without breaking some game eggs. Your platform becomes defensive as it gets old, because you're trying to support legacy baggage. Every time you write code,whether its GUI or games, that's coded highly optimized against GPU hardware, you risk the code not being scalable and portable to different platforms.
Last edited by Guamguy; November 21st, 2010 at 11:11 AM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Guamguy For This Useful Post:
Device(s): Galaxy S II,
Captivate,
Nexus 1 (retired),
Nook Color,
Asus Transformer.
Thanks: 2,607
Thanked 5,146 Times in 3,019 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Alien
All I know is that I was a long time XP user and I got my son a laptop with Vista. It was constantly having issues, sparked pop ups for every single action you took, behaved poorly between the admin and user accounts, was laggy and seemed to need constant reboots. Dell gave us a free upgrade to 7 and I did it ASAP. Ever since the same laptop has been extremely stable and the onslaught of pop ups that Vista had have been removed. No issues since. So that was from my experience and reviews I have seen of people with the same issues. It was an interim OS rushed to market and it showed.
You problems could have stemmed from a wide variety of issues from poorly constructed drivers to misconfiguration or a lack of understanding about how Vista was supposed to work. I have no doubt that everything you say happened did indeed happen, however a single user experience does not make a logical argument to condemn the entire OS. The problem with reviews and the internet echo chamber is that a small percentage of vocal dissatisfied users can make a problem seem much greater than it actually is. The constant talk about Android fragmentation, for instance is a perfect example. Even the iPhone 4 "antennagate" does not to be so serious a flaw as to effect sales.
The truth is that Vista was not rushed to market. In fact it wad delayed to market in order to address advancing technologies and security concerns. MS begun development on parts of Vista (codename Longhorn) as early as 2002 and formally announced it in 2005. Vista was released worldwide in Jan. of '07. Since Windows 7 was not released until Oct. of '09, Vista's life at the top of the MS desktop OS list was over 2-1/2 years, which makes it average for a MS product cycle. XP was the anomaly.
You are perfectly entitled to your opinion, but it is neither logical nor conducive to intelligent discussion to state a sampling of user dissatisfaction as a blanket condemnation and failure of the entire OS. The statistical numbers simply to not bear that out. I have no doubt that many parts of the Vista OS that you believed to be shortcomings you find to be advantages in Windows 7 by virtue of your overall satisfaction with that OS.
But, we have diverted from the OP's original topic so if you wish to continue discussion on this topic you may send me a private message. Good day to you sir.
WinMo 7 vs Android?
button...
