Related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3Om...2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1
looking really good
http://my.opera.com/operamobile/blog/2009/03/26/opera-mobile-9-7-beta-for-windows-mobile
no cabs floating around?
"OpenGL ES
Hardware acceleration with OpenGL ES support, ensuring smoother scrolling, panning and a more fluid user interface."
THANK YOU OPERA! ! ! !
No really, this is great. I can't wait. All browsers on WM have their vice's (including Opera), but still, every time I keep coming back for Opera Mobile goodness.
I checked out the Turbo function on the Opera 10 Alpha, and its pretty good. I hope the rendering is faster and more effective, since that (processing power) is still a weak point on WM devices.
Can't wait
Opera 9.7 sounds really good, almost too good to be true.
Can't wait to give it a try.
Hope the startup is as quick as Opera Mini - cause that's a dream to use!!
now they are also doing geolocation
http://wmpoweruser.com/?p=3887
Opera and Skyhook Wireless Bring Geolocation to the Web
from wmpoweruser by admin
Opera Software and Skyhook Wireless today announced their partnership to bring geolocation to the Web. Users can now simply choose to share their location with any Web site and get a range of information about related products and services around them. Whether it is local searching, social networking, geotagging photos, local advertising or discovering nearby content, geolocation is a key factor in creating a relevant and meaningful experience on the Web.
Traditionally, geolocation was considered as being only a part of a downloadable mobile application, but, with Skyhook’s Wi-Fi Positioning System (WPS), any computer or mobile phone with a wireless adapter can take advantage of its advanced positioning technology and locate a user, making this service available to any Web site.
“Location is always relevant when someone is browsing the Web,” said Tatsuki Tomita, SVP of consumer products at Opera Software. “By embedding Skyhook’s technology into Opera and making it available through the W3C Geolocation API, we ensure that every Opera user gets the same, high-quality, location-based experience out of the gate.”
With the new W3C Geolocation Application Programming Interface (API), Opera will make Skyhook Wireless’ groundbreaking location platform available to any Web developer with just a few lines of JavaScript. For example, a popular coffee chain will write the necessary JavaScript code on their Web site, Opera will ask the user for approval, then the location will be submitted to the Web site servers and their service will display the coffee shop locations nearest to the user on a map.
“Making accurate and reliable geolocation available over JavaScript to any Web developer means Skyhook’s market leading platform will be in the hands of a whole new world of developers and we expect to see the explosion of location-based services on the Web,” said Ryan Sarver, director of consumer products at Skyhook Wireless.
A technology preview for their desktop browser is available for download at http://labs.opera.com/.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Anyone can tell everybody the day out?
when will it be out please let me know
Maybe it will be included in R3A?
darthmelk said:
Maybe it will be included in R3A?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't think so
This really looks amazing, i cannot wait to try it out when it's available!
All I ask for is Opera Bookmark sync. Hopefully this will be included.
I've also been searching for a possibility to edit the Opera-Mobile-bookmarks on the PC to get kind of sync. And I found a - I have to give in not very comfortable - solution.
All you have to do is to edit your 'opera6.adr'-file. You can either replace the one on your X1 with one made by Opera on the PC or you can also open the file with the Editor on your PC and edit it how you want it.
de Wolfe said:
I've also been searching for a possibility to edit the Opera-Mobile-bookmarks on the PC to get kind of sync. And I found a - I have to give in not very comfortable - solution.
All you have to do is to edit your 'opera6.adr'-file. You can either replace the one on your X1 with one made by Opera on the PC or you can also open the file with the Editor on your PC and edit it how you want it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
>>> I already tried this and I noticed that the bookmarks are not in the same order as they are in pc browser. I also noticed that when typing in web addresses in Opera, that there is a lag because I think it searches through all my bookmarks.
Not new News of opera 9.7?
gretZ,
gongoscho
really excited to the opera 9.7.
Hope the flash problem really solved in the new version
my biggest problem with current version of opera in that you have to "zoom in" to click on links, as aposed to selecting them in the "zoomed out" mode. You get what I mean?
tsponge said:
my biggest problem with current version of opera in that you have to "zoom in" to click on links, as aposed to selecting them in the "zoomed out" mode. You get what I mean?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yeah, know what u mean
i really really want adobe to release a decent flash plugin (or opera should come up with another solution)
Hope the new one can play youtube movies directly from the website they are buildin. Watching www.pocketnow.com I can only see black boxes with "play" sign on it. When there's no link to www.youtube.com its hard to find the one.
this is a bit of speculation.. but i thought id share:
http://www.fuzemobility.com/opera-97-turbo-to-be-released-tomorrow/
http://www.mobiletopsoft.com/board/...or-windows-mobile--available-this-Monday.html
to articles claiming a release of tommrow
It's probably not going to happen. Turns out, Opera are quite prone to simply giving up on software and never getting round to releasing new versions. It's as if they have some attention deficit disorder, except on a company scale.
Iris is probably better, anyhow.
Opera 9.7 beta ftp link
ftp://ftp.opera.com/pub/opera/winmobile/970b1/
When I visit websites that also have sites optimized for mobile phones like nu.nl and cracked.com i am direcedt to those. But I want the original site. I can't find a way to change it. I turned mobile view off.
taarmen said:
When I visit websites that also have sites optimized for mobile phones like nu.nl and cracked.com i am direcedt to those. But I want the original site. I can't find a way to change it. I turned mobile view off.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You can't change it. It's not caused by Opera. It's the site that detects that you are using Opera Mini, and decides that you are to get a mobile site instead of the full site. Complain to the site.
Type opera:config in your address bar and poke around with the settings. It's in there somewhere.
EyeAmRubber said:
You can't change it. It's not caused by Opera. It's the site that detects that you are using Opera Mini, and decides that you are to get a mobile site instead of the full site.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And where do you think the site gets this information from? From Opera! - sending the wrong string as user agent in it's HTTP-requests.
EyeAmRubber said:
Complain to the site.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No. The site does deliver correctly what the browser requested. It's definitely Opera sending the wrong request.
SE-X1 said:
And where do you think the site gets this information from? From Opera! - sending the wrong string as user agent in it's HTTP-requests.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, it's sending the right string. It's telling the site which browser it is. The wrong thing would be to lie about it.
No. The site does deliver correctly what the browser requested. It's definitely Opera sending the wrong request.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, Opera is just telling the site that it's Opera. The site is choosing what it does when it encounters Opera.
If Opera changed its user agent string to become unrecognizable, browser statistics would be messed up, and sites relying on browsers to be truthful would break.
EyeAmRubber said:
No, it's sending the right string. It's telling the site which browser it is. The wrong thing would be to lie about it.
No, Opera is just telling the site that it's Opera. The site is choosing what it does when it encounters Opera.
If Opera changed its user agent string to become unrecognizable, browser statistics would be messed up, and sites relying on browsers to be truthful would break.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So this anoying problem can be fixed by just changing one string or telling 3476587653745344378 sites to change the way they handle requests.
I think it wouldn't even mess up statistics. There are more reliable methods to identify the browser than by using the user agent. The desktop version for example is capable of identifying itself as IE or Firefox and it does not mess up statistics.
I don't get mobile versions of pages shown in Opera mobile so this should be possible in Mini too.
SE-X1 said:
So this anoying problem can be fixed by just changing one string or telling 3476587653745344378 sites to change the way they handle requests.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Changing the string would break 3476587653745344378^10 other sites. And would remove it completely from browser stats. Which would get all the whiners going on about how no one is using Opera again.
I think it wouldn't even mess up statistics. There are more reliable methods to identify the browser than by using the user agent.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Such as?
The desktop version for example is capable of identifying itself as IE or Firefox and it does not mess up statistics.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It identifies as Opera by default. When it identifies as something else, it is not counted as Opera, but as a different browser.
I don't get mobile versions of pages shown in Opera mobile so this should be possible in Mini too.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Of course it's possible in Mini. This has got nothing to do with Opera Mini's capabilities. It's the site that chooses to send you to a mobile site.
You can argue as much as you want, it doesn't change anythink about the fact, that O-mini does not show the expected content although it could be very easily be fixed. That's ultra-anoying on any high-res-device.
There's even a checkbox in Opera's options to chose if you want to see mobile-versions if available or not, but it's just ignored.
I'm pretty sure the string can be altered in a way that does both, full-size-content AND right statistics.
Check showip.com with Desktop-Opera. It shows your user agent. It changes when you set Opera to claim it's IE or FF, but they all still include "Opera" +version in that string. Stats can still identify it correctly no matter what you select.
SE-X1 said:
You can argue as much as you want, it doesn't change anythink about the fact, that O-mini does not show the expected content although it could be very easily be fixed.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not arguing. I'm pointing out the fact that Opera Mini is simply showing the content that's being sent to it. I'm pointing out the fact that it's the site that's doing this. You are arguing because you evidently don't understand the subject matter.
There's even a checkbox in Opera's options to chose if you want to see mobile-versions if available or not, but it's just ignored.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, that checkbox actually controls what Opera Mini does. It changes the way Opera Mini handles a page. This is completely different from the problem you are referring to, which has to do with what the site does when it detects that you are using Opera Mini.
I'm pretty sure the string can be altered in a way that does both, full-size-content AND right statistics.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, because the sites that are sending Opera Mini to mobile pages are doing so specifically for Opera Mini. If Opera Mini changes its UA string, those sites will simply adapt to the new string, and send that to a mobile page as well. You will have gotten nowhere, except making other people's life harder.
Check showip.com with Desktop-Opera. It shows your user agent. It changes when you set Opera to claim it's IE or FF, but they all still include "Opera" +version in that string. Stats can still identify it correctly no matter what you select.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Again, the sites that send Opera Mini to a mobile version are specifically looking for Opera Mini. If you change the string to include other browsers, the page will still specifically look for Opera Mini. It would solve nothing, as explained above.
Stats can identify it correctly if you don't remove Opera Mini from the string. But you seemed to suggest that they simply hide Opera Mini completely, in which case those stats sites would not be able to detect it.
Finally, what more reliable methods to identify the browser than the user agent string are there?
This is getting too much blah blah for a trivial thing. It could be fixed but it's not --> not good
It does work with Opera mobile, that's proof enough that it could work with mini too, no matter how it works.
You are right about the checkbox "mobile view", that's "Small screen rendering mode" which is something else... misleading label.
Im not the expert that can tell you how exactly the user Agent string has to look like, but it's obvious that it could work with the right one.
(Forget about "more reliable methods", seams like it does all work fine with user agents only)
SE-X1 said:
This is getting too much blah blah for a trivial thing. It could be fixed but it's not --> not good
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It needs to be fixed by the site. It is not Opera Mini which decides which page it's being sent.
It does work with Opera mobile, that's proof enough that it could work with mini too, no matter how it works.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Opera Mini and Opera Mobile have different UA strings. Again, it's got nothing to do with "working with Opera Mini". This isn't caused by Opera Mini. It's caused by sites that detect that you are using Opera Mini.
Im not the expert that can tell you how exactly the user Agent string has to look like, but it's obvious that it could work with the right one.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm telling you that it couldn't. These sites that send Opera Mini mobile content do so because they chose to specifically do so for whatever reason. Changing the UA string would just piss these people off, and update their scripts to send mobile pages to the new UA string as well.
It's getting boring. Have fun with ugly unreadable pages while I surf the web how it's supposed to look.
You admit that you were mistaken then, I presume?
EyeAmRubber said:
You admit that you were mistaken then, I presume?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, you're simply wrong, I just gave up convining you.
So I am "simply wrong" even though you made all the false assertions, such as "more reliable methods" (showing that you have no idea what you are talking about).
Telling me that I'm wrong when all your arguments so far have been devastated is not exactly convincing.
EyeAmRubber said:
So I am "simply wrong" even though you made all the false assertions, such as "more reliable methods" (showing that you have no idea what you are talking about).
Telling me that I'm wrong when all your arguments so far have been devastated is not exactly convincing.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I was wrong in a detail like I already said above. But that doesn't change anything about the rest. The problem can definitely be fixed in the Software, that's a provable fact I'm not going to discuss anymore. Saying the software is ok, just the rest of the world has to change to become compatible is just nonsense because it will not fix the problem because it will never happen.
Besides the alternative view does make sense on low end devices so it has to be Opera to decide witch view to load depending on the resulution of the device or better by the settings the user made. And don't tell me again it's not possible, that's just nonsense because it's not and does already work with other browsers.
The "problem" can't be "fixed" by Opera without breaking it for everyone else.
The rest of the world doesn't need to change. You are the one who wants sites who specifically send Opera Mini users to a mobile site to change.
As I already explained, this is not about "Opera views", this is about what kind of content a site sends to Opera. It "works" in other browsers because the sites are not sending them to a mobile site.
Again: Changing the useragen string would break ****loads of websites, and Opera would disappear from the stats. That, or the change will achieve exactly nothing, because the sites that are sending Opera Mini users to a mobile site are specifically looking for Opera Mini in the first place.
You need to stop making assertions when you are clearly severely lacking in knowledge on the subject. It gets worse when you blame Opera for something the site is doing, and claim that it's in Opera's hands.
Sure it's the Site that sends different content, nobody stated anything else. But it depends on the request made by the browser! And when I say it works in other browsers I'm NOT talking about desktop browsers. I use Opera mobile and it does what i want although I got the same results as with Mini with default settings.
In Opera mobile you just go to the setting and set "Spoof UserAgent ID" to "2" to mask as Mozilla. That does still leave "Opera 9.7" mentioned in the User agent and is still identified in browser statistics correctly, but this way you allways get fullsize content without breaking anything. Sure thing the same can be done to any other browser easily.
Maybe you just try it yourself and then we talk again who's got a lack of knowledge.
It's so funny reading all the time what's impossible while everyone can download other mobile browsers and see with own eyes that it's not.
SE-X1 said:
Sure it's the Site that sends different content, nobody stated anything else. But it depends on the request made by the browser!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In what way, specifically? What kind of request?
And when I say it works in other browsers I'm NOT talking about desktop browsers. I use Opera mobile and it does what i want although I got the same results as with Mini with default settings.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Again, that is because other browsers have a different UA string, and the sites haven't started specifically sending those to a mobile page.
In Opera mobile you just go to the setting and set "Spoof UserAgent ID" to "2" to mask as Mozilla. That does still leave "Opera 9.7" mentioned in the User agent and is still identified in browser statistics correctly, but this way you allways get fullsize content without breaking anything.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, masking as Mozilla completely removes "Opera". "Identify as" doesn't.
How do you know that it's identified in browser statistics?
BTW, please give me an example of a site which sends mobile content to Opera Mobile 7 before changing this setting.
It's so funny reading all the time what's impossible while everyone can download other mobile browsers and see with own eyes that it's not.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Evidently, those other mobile browsers are not being singled out by the site and sent mobile content. Once again you show that you completely fail to understand the fundamentals of browser sniffing.
in my view i dont think mini5 is esstially much speedy & good than mini4.2 so i am still use 4.2 now
Hi People,
If you go here: Google "javafx for windows mobile download" you can DL the JavaFX update from SUN, which I did. It installed fine. (Sorry, my account is apparently too new to post the link).
It also comes with a few demo apps to try. But when I try to run it, I get an error:
"Calculated only a partial product UUID!This can cause problems with the correct device identification."
I called T-mobile and explained this, and that I had just updated the Dash to the latest T=Mobile/Windows CE OS version 5.2.1236, build 17741.0.2.1.
Of course they said they can't support any 2rd party apps. They also questioned whether the Dash was "too old" to run JavaFX. I have a hard time believing that last part. It runs plain old Java just fine.
I am hoping someone could try the DL I mention above and post the results, with the goal of getting JavaFX working on my/other peoples Dash.
As a footnote,I found this error posted a few other places with no answer.
likesjava said:
Hi People,
If you go here: Google "javafx for windows mobile download" you can DL the JavaFX update from SUN, which I did. It installed fine. (Sorry, my account is apparently too new to post the link).
It also comes with a few demo apps to try. But when I try to run it, I get an error:
"Calculated only a partial product UUID!This can cause problems with the correct device identification."
I called T-mobile and explained this, and that I had just updated the Dash to the latest T=Mobile/Windows CE OS version 5.2.1236, build 17741.0.2.1.
Of course they said they can't support any 2rd party apps. They also questioned whether the Dash was "too old" to run JavaFX. I have a hard time believing that last part. It runs plain old Java just fine.
I am hoping someone could try the DL I mention above and post the results, with the goal of getting JavaFX working on my/other peoples Dash.
As a footnote,I found this error posted a few other places with no answer.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i just downloaded it and it does work. my thoughts are that you probably need to upgrade your rom. your version 5.2.1236 is a bit dated and my guess is that's why it's not working for you. currently im running 3vo 6.5 and it's working just fine, overclocked to 274. try updating your OS/rom first, it should work after that.
btw there are plenty of forums around here that give good tutorials on updating your OS/rom if you've never done it before. study and up and take the plunge!
likesjava said:
I called T-mobile and explained this, and that I had just updated the Dash to the latest T=Mobile/Windows CE OS version 5.2.1236, build 17741.0.2.1.
Of course they said they can't support any 2rd party apps. They also questioned whether the Dash was "too old" to run JavaFX. I have a hard time believing that last part. It runs plain old Java just fine.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
one more thing, tmobile isn't very tech savvy when it comes to this sort of thing. they have much info at their fingertips but they have to search to find it and most of them aren't that good at it. they are trained on newer phones but not the older ones. trust me i'd know, i used to work at a tech center. they have a decent database with logs on problems customers have had in the past and solutions, but the rep on the phone isn't always able to find the info. i was one of the better ones but they didnt want to move me to permanent tech even though that's what i was good at, and instead shuffled me to cust service to argue with people about their bills... so i quit
anyway, it's best to come here first and ask rather than ask them. we'll probably save you some time
Thank you Young!
I took the plunge and downloaded and flashed EXCA-3VOLUTION_WM65_3VO.3.00.112509. Along the way I applied the app unlock as instructed. I wonder - would the app unlock alone have been enough?
Well, in any case JavaFX is up and running! Yay! - thanks to you
I had no idea that there were people writing all sorts of new OS etc for these phones - I'm just a phone user.
Now - silly question but - none of these new ROMS allow free wifi or Internet access do they?
hey, what is JavaFx ??? Does it like JBed Java ?
It runs on any device that can run Java. Think of it as a prettier, fancier, high tech looking java. Its actually pretty fun to program as well. And its free (the development environment).
Here are some Google results for your question:
JavaFX is a software platform for creating and delivering rich Internet applications that can run across a wide variety of connected devices. ..
What is JavaFX?
JavaFX is a rich client platform for building cross-device applications and content. Designed to enable easy creation and deployment of rich internet applications (RIAs) with immersive media and content, the JavaFX platform ensures that RIAs look and behave consistently across diverse form factors and devices.
The JavaFX platform release includes the following components:
* JavaFX SDK which includes the JavaFX compiler and runtime tools, graphics, media, web services, and rich text libraries to create RIAs for the desktop, browser and mobile platforms.
* NetBeans IDE for JavaFX which provides a sophisticated integrated development environment for building, previewing, and debugging JavaFX applications. The editor features a drag-and-drop palette to quickly add JavaFX objects with transformations, effects and animation. This IDE also comes with its own set of Building Block samples and the JavaFX Mobile Emulator, a mobile phone simulator.
* JavaFX Production Suite is a suite of tools and plugins that enable designers to export graphical assets to JavaFX applications.
likesjava said:
Thank you Young!
I took the plunge and downloaded and flashed EXCA-3VOLUTION_WM65_3VO.3.00.112509. Along the way I applied the app unlock as instructed. I wonder - would the app unlock alone have been enough?
Well, in any case JavaFX is up and running! Yay! - thanks to you
I had no idea that there were people writing all sorts of new OS etc for these phones - I'm just a phone user.
Now - silly question but - none of these new ROMS allow free wifi or Internet access do they?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
np, glad to be of help. it woulda been nice if my email program let me know i had a reply earlier though
anyway, about the free wifi and internet... no programs can do that, that i know of. there are ways to hack into other peeps networks for free bandwidth from pc's (as i've seen it done), but if you want free internet on the phone there's only a few simple options...
1. pay for it, either through a phone carrier ex: tmobile, at&t, etc. or get a router for your home network and at least then you can connect to your home wifi.
2. find a starbucks, local coffee house, hospital, or any place that is pumpin out free wifi and hop on the network.
anyway, even if there were those types of 'programs' you couldn't post about it here cuz it would get taken off immediately and the person posted would probably get banned. they're not too friendly about that stuff
hello guys, I'm a little dissapointed, I've just found this website to test the html5 speed of your browser and WP7 is one of the worst in html5, try it in your phones, I've tested it on my samsung focus mango RTM and it scores 141 out of 450 points
h t t p ://www.html5test.com/
ps: maybe I'm wrong but..... now I don't know
It happened to me too. Maybe it depends on the connection.
I think so too.. Look at d videos on uploading onto on fb.. Freaking fast.. I can gwf it up half its speed if im lucky..
Sent from my LG Optimus 7
ok try to go to touch.facebook.com from a wp7 , and from an iphone or android or bada phone.. html5 in wp7 mango is very bad..
try in other sites like: m.gizmodo.com ... m.engadget.com..
don't blame the browser. Blame the site. They're not recognizing it's mango and sending you to the correct site. Once mango is released many they will send to the html5 versions.
Thats because IE9 in general is not that good in HTML5. Even the desktop version just gets 141 points. That will however change in IE10.
Yes, but for IE10 will have to wait 1 year!! ....
Stock browser on my tab 211 and maxthron mobile same 211...
jaiem said:
hello guys, I'm a little dissapointed, I've just found this website to test the html5 speed of your browser and WP7 is one of the worst in html5, try it in your phones, I've tested it on my samsung focus mango RTM and it scores 141 out of 450 points
h t t p ://www.html5test.com/
ps: maybe I'm wrong but..... now I don't know
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You are wrong. Its not a speed test.
Dude, this seems like a biased site to me. It's not possible that every single phone on every single connection, doing any number of background tasks like music, email, etc. scores a 141, It's like it recognizes it as IE and scores it as 141 no matter what. This is not a speed test.
thesecondsfade said:
Dude, this seems like a biased site to me. It's not possible that every single phone on every single connection, doing any number of background tasks like music, email, etc. scores a 141, It's like it recognizes it as IE and scores it as 141 no matter what. This is not a speed test.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
141 for both Mobile and Pc browser?
Just confirmed, pretty hard to believe though.
Creamy
Why do you guys judge the performance of a browser upon some random value spit out by a website rather than using the browser and seeing for yourself? I for one can claim that both IE9 for desktop (I still like Opera better though) as well as IE9 mobile are pretty fast.
It's not hard to believe. IE9 mobile uses the same rendering engine called Trident like the desktop version. Why should it be different? Even the Acid3 test scores 95/100 on both versions.
creamy said:
141 for both Mobile and Pc browser?
Just confirmed, pretty hard to believe though.
Creamy
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The test tests how well it complies to "standards", not how fast it is. Firefox renders the page instantly, while it takes Chrome 2-3 seconds and it still gets a higher score.
Something that is worth to remember when it comes when it comes to HTML5 and CSS3 is that it first of all isn't complete standards some of the points in that test might in fact only be suggested but not at all accepted to be a part of the HTML5 standard (yet).
There is also a lot of strong biasing towards the Webkit engine. It probably has something to do with Google pushing it and everyone knows that Google is the good guy, right? (rolleyes).. A very good example of this is http://i.reddit.com/. If you do some research on the CSS you will quickly note that it isn't written according to the W3 standard, but what I assume are something more like Googles standard.
Conslusion: Google is the new Microsoft when it comes to making up web standards.
www.html5test.com is not based on standards. MS has said that they will support HTML5 standards as they get finalized. Also, IE scores 95/100 on acid 3 because the other 5% is not yet standardized.
Consider a scenario where MS introduces support for a non-standard feature. Corporations and IT guys develop internal applications which use this feature. However, HTML5 standards group adopts a different version of the feature so MS has to change it. The IT guys mentioned above will have a nightmares.
Many internal apps developed and used within coporations depend on IE and Trident Engine.
Although Chrome scores high, in the past they have often abandoned fetures to adopt different standrds.
For long term benefits, we need proper HTML5 standard support and not get distracted by cool experimental features. IE9 is a very good browser. Don't let the numbers confuse you.
there are a lot of html5 websites that dont work on the mobile IE unfortunately, like he said touch.facebook.com does not work, also vimeo.com does not work as well as a few others. Its not as good as I expected it to be, and not that usefull as of now.
All we can hope for is that WP7 will be a recognised platform and companies will also test their mobile websites to work with WP7. If this happens it will be very usefull to have html5 support. Until that day Im happy the general rendering is improved and most sites render correctly now.
It seems as though touch.facebook.com is working just fine for me. It's not giving me the mobile version. The touch version automatically continues loading your news feed when you reach the bottom.
My IE9 is setup to show me the Desktop version of sites if that makes a difference to any of you.
morpheuszg said:
It's not hard to believe. IE9 mobile uses the same rendering engine called Trident like the desktop version. Why should it be different? Even the Acid3 test scores 95/100 on both versions.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Because IE9 is hardware accelerated on HTML5... so unless the phone and pc have identical hardware, the score will be different.
Nor ACID tests, nor HTML5 tests are based ON SPEED but on FEATURES SUPPORT. Sir. Haxalot is right.
Desktop PC and IE9 on mango will score the same score, since they are THE SAME CORE.
Marvin_S said:
there are a lot of html5 websites that dont work on the mobile IE unfortunately, like he said touch.facebook.com does not work, also vimeo.com does not work as well as a few others. Its not as good as I expected it to be, and not that usefull as of now.
All we can hope for is that WP7 will be a recognised platform and companies will also test their mobile websites to work with WP7. If this happens it will be very usefull to have html5 support. Until that day Im happy the general rendering is improved and most sites render correctly now.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As for vimeo, just use the button "View in couch-mode" on top right corner in each video. Then it works. A bit inconvinient but a good workaround.
Is there any way to fake the user agent while using the web browser on my windows phone 7? The only thing I dislike about my HD7S is that almost all of the websites are full desktop size, I like how it showed my web pages on my iPhone before I ditched it for this HD7S. Another thing is-is there any hack that will also block any ads on apps? Being tied to a limited amount of data that I can use a month, that would come in handy while using ad based apps.
Thanks!
Sent from my HD7 T9292 using XDA Windows Phone 7 App
This question belongs in the Q&A forum, not the Dev & Hack forum. Nonetheless, since a mod hasn't closed it yet:
To change the user agent string to a "mobile" mode, open the Settings page for IE and switch it from Desktop to Mobile. However, you can't actually spoof the user-agent string; it just comes with two options.
No way that I know of to block ads in apps, but they use surprisingly little bandwidth. It might be possible to tweak HOSTS on the phone (if you have interop-unlock) to stop it from talking to the most common ad servers.
Blocking ads is really really rude. Websites cost a lot of money to run and the only way offset that is via advertisements or donations.
MJCS said:
Blocking ads is really really rude. Websites cost a lot of money to run and the only way offset that is via advertisements or donations.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Agree, but mostly because I'm running a one-man news website
The few pennies you generate in revenue via ads is what makes the apps you use free. If you want to block the ads, buy the paid version of the app.
There's no faster way to discourage a developer from making apps than to block their only method of generating any sort of revenue.
Must of missed this one.
Not development.
Thread Closed