Develop Bugs

Windows Phone 7... WTF

Anyone seen the article at PPCGeeks.com about Windows Phone 7??
I cant believe the crap Microsoft is trying to pull...
-At the Mobile World Congress event on February 15th, 2010, Windows Phone 7 will be unveilved, although at this time plans are only to unveil the user interface of the new platform . Specific indepth functionality of the device will most likely not be shown.
-The User Interface is based upon codename “METRO”. It will be very similar to the Zune HD User Interface with a complete revamp of the “Start” screen. The UI is “Very Clean”, “Soulful” and “Alive”
-Unfortunately there will be no Flash support at the get go as there was not enough time to implement these features.
-Windows Phone 7 will only support application installation through service based delivery. (i.e Marketplace). Application installation via storage card will not be possible.
- No Multi-Task support. Applications will “Pause” when in the background, however will support notifications via push notifications.
-Marketplace will now support “try before you buy” as well as an API
-No NETCF backwards compatibility. This means the original rumor of no backward compatibility for applications holds to be true. That being said, there are high hopes of porting the NetCF to the newer platform easily.
-Microsoft is confident that devices will be ready by September 2010
-Full Zune Integration
-Windows Mobile Device Center will no longer be used. Zune software to take over syncing via PC.
-OEM Interfaces will not be allowed to run on the device. Say goodbye to Sense UI / SPB Mobile Shell / Point UI / Infinity, etc, etc
-Full XBOX Gaming Integration (Gamer tag, achievements, friends, avatars, merchandising, etc)
-Full support for social networking
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Looks like I will be making my next phone purchase based on WinMo6 and Android... Prob wont ever go to WinMo7...

i wouldnt believe any rumors that come out until microsoft confirms it. there have been so many different rumors from respectable sources and they all contradict each other. who to believe? no one

I don't want an iPhone from my Windows phone!

lol. I may use Android but I was looking at WM and thinking "That is a way better work phone than a Blackberry." but after reading those new rumors I am starting to doubt that.
I hope they are wrong since we don't need another iFail on the market but I can tell you one thing. HTC won't stand for that. They will mask all the ugly with their gorgeous HTC SENSE.

Yes but if u read that
-OEM Interfaces will not be allowed to run on the device. Say goodbye to Sense UI / SPB Mobile Shell / Point UI / Infinity, etc, etc
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So? I think we will see, because HD2 is running with sense, and i don't thing that official update to WM 7 will be something like that.

Oh whatever!...
honestly, why are you surprised?
Look at the success of the other companies and OS's who use similar strategies.
Lock down the device = enhanced and specific support for hardware, and etc., specifically hardware.
ZuneHD is a perfect example. I thought about getting one (for about 5 minutes) because of that sweet'n'sexy little tegra chip. MS couldn't have made that run as smooth & efficiently on a CE5.x base.
I will probably not get one of these phones either (unless they've not leaked some amazing feature like a free MS Surface Table with purchase of every WinPhone7, haha).
Though, I do wish MS the best of luck trying to deliver Proprietary content and software in a prettier way than Apple. I mean lets face it: Apple tends to slap handcuffs on it's customers and they still wanna dance. Hope MS's mobile department has been talking to the Xbox360's marketing Dept.

-OEM Interfaces will not be allowed to run on the device
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
One of the many things I love about my phone is that I can change interfaces, get unique interfaces, and duplicate other phone's interfaces. lets hope this is only one version of Windows 7. It looks they are taking the iphone direction - make the phone idiot proof and lock it down

Haha sounds like someone is making fun of us and posts all that sucks on the iPhone OS:
-Unfortunately there will be no Flash support at the get go as there was not
enough time to implement these features.
-Windows Phone 7 will only support application installation through service based delivery. (i.e Marketplace). Application installation via storage card will not be possible.
- No Multi-Task support. Applications will “Pause” when in the background, however will support notifications via push notifications.

WM7
Hmm.. I see Microsoft Iphone

Well if that is true then I will be staying with winmo 6.1/6.5 and Android forever The HD2 is such a powerful beast, I hope Android will be fully ported to it...
Imagine dual booting WM6.5 & Android on the HD2 with it's powerful cpu & large clear capacitive screen!! Then WinMO 7 can go and die a slow death, I wouldn't care

UGH
I fear the future also, as many do. (of the wm os) Microsoft ~ Windows Mobile has a niche for getting things wrong pretty much all the time. I read a rather creditable article that the new sync software was to be the Zune software? WTF my Zune syncs wrong almost all the time especially this last time and the other last time...UGH I fear the future of Windows Mobile and hope they get there heads out of there A$$ and step it up. I've had to call Zune support multiple times and also have to yet to date. (again ugh)
~Windows Mobile Device Center will no longer be used. Zune software to take over syncing via PC.....?????
~DJyoSNOW~
~PLUR~ Peace Love Unity Respect

If it becomes true, then I will stick on WM 6.5 on the HD2. However, things may change, it could be fake, it could be hackable.

this looks fake... in fact i agree that someone listed all the things that suck on the iphone and wrote "windows phone 7" all over it.
these points look like from an US-centered point of view. i mean - marketplace?! it's crap all over the world and nearly empty, EXCEPT in the US. zune?! it has been released only where? exactly, again the US.
no OEM-gui allowed? if that were to be true, htc would've already announced to stop making winmo-phones.
nah, this is fake...

Just a Rumor
We still need to wait and see, this is a rumor. I think most people on here would not stand for an Iphone like OS and would move to android instead if Windows did that. I kinda believe they will have a duel os model and this description would fit the model for the media targeted devices. A professional-like version would keep alot of what we love alive and give us some of what we are hoping for.

Look what Apple did and how successful they are with those iPhone and iPod Touch.
But I doubt it is true, those rumors are (at least half of them) fake .

omg!!! no multi-task..

I don't think Microsoft will do this.
They must be crazy to.. If they do this, the 'enthusiast' users (the people currently still holding up Windows Mobile on their hands) will drop the new OS and MS would have to start all over again. Why would users choose for their OS while there are no advantages any longer?
Maybe this is the spec of some limited media/Zune version of the OS, not the PRO version, if these are actually true.
Might aswell be some bashing done by an iPhone/Andoid fanboy that got picked up further down the pipe.

I don't believe all of it. I think those are just rumors from the anti-MS people.
If MS ever wanted to make Windows to be like a MAC OS, they would have done it long ago. I don't think they will do such thing in the Mobile branch neither.
I would think(hope) it will be something like:
Windows Phone = Windows 7 Home (for the grandpas)
Windows Phone Pro = Windows 7 Ultimate/Pro (for the enthusiasts/geeks)

i doubt that there is not going to be any Multi-Tasking. thats what "Windows" is all about. probably all BS

OndraSter said:
Look what Apple did and how successful they are with those iPhone and iPod Touch.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yep, but just take a look why ppl are still sticking with the pretty outdated windows mobile. Because of an open system, not this closed sh*t. Seriously, why should anybody pick Windows Mobile 7 with the same shortcomings as the iPhone, when the iPhone got perfected for 4 years prior to the new MS OS ... with a whole more of useful apps.
But since android is a nice alternative with lots of customization-options and multitasking, I don't really care about MS f*cking up Windows Mobile 7. Would be nice if they didn't though ...

Wp7 vs android vs iphone vs...

We have been getting off topic in the advanrtages of WP7 or andriod and iphone. So let's take the discussion to one thread with an all out brawl between the three
With the recent announcement from apple I think Microsoft will have no choice but to throw everything they have at WP7 coming out the gates in order to compete. I think Apple's annoucement of a gamer community was a real low blow and Microsoft's xbox live offering but atleast xbox live can span platforms for right now that keeps an advantage.
vangrieg said:
Me, I love to see things escalating in this market - it just smells great phones! Redmond must be pissed off now - I suspect Apple just stole their show. I suspected something like iPhone's new approach to multitasking in WP7, there are hints this was the plan. I don't feel like its the end of the world for them, they have a lot of patience and recently decided to invest a billion dollars into their mobile platform. Let's not forget that there are advantages and disadvantages to being the first mover, and Microsoft has a lot of information about where others succeeded and failed. Remember XBox? they came late to the party Sony was ruling, but it's all different now.
As regards Android, I wouldn't expect dramatic changes from this side now. It's a successful platform, there's no sense of urgency, and Google usually dramatically reduces investment after initial rapid development. Political issues will prevent platform unification and radical changes in their policies towards OEMs, and there's just too much talk about freedom and openness and all that to reverse the course even a little bit. Especially given that not everyone even sees dangers here.
It's going to be a great year.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree with all of that. The more competition there is out there the harder all the companies have to work and that is always a plus for the consumer. I predict alot more out of WP7 just because of these announcements from Apple. As far as google goes, the platform is already so open what more can they add? It's about to the point where the only thing they can do is take things away.

I agree. I strongly disapprove of Apple, but this was a slick move. As far as multitasking goes; I always thought Microsoft would probably bring multitasking in an update down the road. My guess is now they are just going to haul ass and get it out with the release. But I still don;t think it will be full 100% multitasking, more like iPhone OS 4.
A big worry I have is that Microsoft will now hurry along with things trying to make WP7 better, and rush it too much. But they still definitely have time to fix some things.
I also agree about Android. My guess is that most of what is done with Android will be done through OEM's and carriers. If phones like the Droid get advertised for the phone's specific qualities, I think Android will continue to see success. Android apps are really picking up, as is the number of devs.
So yeah, when it comes down to it we the consumers will likely have a good (but with some possible pains) year.

Google have already announced that they are slowing down development of the core OS as it's stable, and will concentrate on applications. The whole point of the platform is being a showcase for Google services, and I'm sure we will not only see new apps for Android itself but also ports to other platforms.

Well I don't think Microsoft need to push full multitasking anyway. I believe get letting some services run like how iPhone 4.0 is going to do it is a great way to do it. Why have the whole app run in the background when you just need what you don't actually have to look at run. This could be great for navigation. Still give you turn by turn in the background without have to show the map when you want to look at something else.
I don't think Microsoft will rush a broken SO out the door this time. They've come a long way and Windows 7 prove it. By far, the most complete and stable OS to hit the market for them. I bet they make sure WP7 does the same.

vangrieg said:
Google have already announced that they are slowing down development of the core OS as it's stable, and will concentrate on applications. The whole point of the platform is being a showcase for Google services, and I'm sure we will not only see new apps for Android itself but also ports to other platforms.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I've seen some TV's will be powered by android in the future. I think spreading across platforms is really what Google was looking for.

Kloc said:
Well I don't think Microsoft need to push full multitasking anyway. I believe get letting some services run like how iPhone 4.0 is going to do it is a great way to do it. Why have the whole app run in the background when you just need what you don't actually have to look at run. This could be great for navigation. Still give you turn by turn in the background without have to show the map when you want to look at something else.
I don't think Microsoft will rush a broken SO out the door this time. They've come a long way and Windows 7 prove it. By far, the most complete and stable OS to hit the market for them. I bet they make sure WP7 does the same.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well I don't think you're trending MS correctly...XP was great and stable for it's time but it was a fixed version of windows 98. Windows 7 is a fixed version of Vista. MS usually needs a meh product to build upon to actually make a good one, or sometimes 2 meh projects like IE 7 & 8...but IE 9 looks pretty good so far if they can get it out the door within the year anyway.
You could make the arguement that the precedessor of wp7 is the Zune though...but MS is bringing that Zune experience and intregrating it with phone services, it's a way bigger conceptual step than 98 -> XP or Vista -> 7. We'll see how this all plays out as far as stability is concerned though.
I've seen some TV's will be powered by android in the future. I think spreading across platforms is really what Google was looking for.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That much is obvious...it's google's business model...produce free stuff, get people to use it...get as much data as you can from the user through their auto-opt-in policies to better target you with Ads. TV is a good market for google to target custom ads to users. But it's this same philosophy that causes me to dislike Google. However, I think that I'd preferr if Google showed me commercials I'm interested in rather than just watching whatever crap commericals the networks felt like showing me...but that's way way in the future, when set-top boxes are more just internet DRM'd devices.

gom99 said:
Well I don't think you're trending MS correctly...XP was great and stable for it's time but it was a fixed version of windows 98. Windows 7 is a fixed version of Vista.
MS usually needs a meh product to build upon to actually make a good one, or sometimes 2 meh projects like IE 7 & 8...but IE 9 looks pretty good so far if they can get it out the door within the year anyway.
You could make the arguement that the precedessor of wp7 is the Zune though...but MS is bringing that Zune experience and intregrating it with phone services. We'll see how this all plays out as far as stability is concerned though.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I see what you're saying. What I'm trying to put across is that MS is realizing that usability and fluidity is what the market is going towards and away from strict functionality. They are focusing more on ways to make sure programs released for their OS work better because usually when software doesn't work now a days especially on a phone OS the user contributes it to being a bad phone and not just bad software. I think they understand this now and are going to make it happen right out the gate and not have to learn from past mistakes like they did with previous platforms. Of course they'll have to add on to WP7 in their next iterations and we will probably say that's what WP7 should have looked like to begin with but we will continue to say that to anything with an update that adds features. I liked Vista when I used it more so then XP and now I like 7 even better. As long as they are taking strides forward I'm a happy camper along for the ride.

gom99 said:
Well I don't think you're trending MS correctly...XP was great and stable for it's time but it was a fixed version of windows 98. Windows 7 is a fixed version of Vista. MS usually needs a meh product to build upon to actually make a good one, or sometimes 2 meh projects like IE 7 & 8...but IE 9 looks pretty good so far if they can get it out the door within the year anyway.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I love it when people who have no idea what they're talking about, try and talk anyway.
1. There were three versions of Windows between Windows 98 and XP: Windows 98 Second Edition, Windows ME, and Windows 2000. Windows 2000 was an exemplary OS, Windows 98SE was a good OS (9.x kernel made everything it touched subpar imo), and Windows ME was a pathetic OS.
2. Vista was fine. The only reason Vista was terrible was because people plugged XP (XP was NT5.1, for reference) drivers into Vista (Vista was NT6.0) and then gnashed their teeth when the OS didn't work properly.
Major kernel revision, you should be praising M$ that the drivers worked at all.
And then there was the fact that Vista was a very forward-thinking OS, and the average consumer-grade hardware at the time wasn't built to maximize Vista's potential. Once your hardware was adequate, Vista out-performed XP. Sure 7 is better than Vista, but that's not the point.
3. IE8 is a good browser. I use it on some of my PCs, and I have no complaints. Obviously there is some issue with standards compliance, but IE8 is a step in the right direction. If the web developers know how to properly take advantage of IE8's doctype sniffing, it's very close to standards complaint. There are a few things it doesn't implement, but for the most part it's pretty good.

Spike15 said:
I love it when people who have no idea what they're talking about, try and talk anyway.
1. There were three versions of Windows between Windows 98 and XP: Windows 98 Second Edition, Windows ME, and Windows 2000. Windows 2000 was an exemplary OS, Windows 98SE was a good OS (9.x kernel made everything it touched subpar imo), and Windows ME was a pathetic OS.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sigh, if you're going to insult me at least do it correctly.
Windows 2000 was a replacement for Windows NT so it was more business related than general consumer related. Instead of Windows 2000 replacing Windows 98 they released Windows 98 2nd Edition. Yes Windows ME was supposed to replace 98 but it was a failure, but that's just another one of MSes blunders on the way to XP.
XP united the fragmentation of the 2000 line and the ME line. But yes, I guess you're right XP was built from things they learned in 2000, failures of ME, and things people liked from their flagship consumer product at the time which was 98.
Spike15 said:
2. Vista was fine. The only reason Vista was terrible was because people plugged XP (XP was NT5.1, for reference) drivers into Vista (Vista was NT6.0) and then gnashed their teeth when the OS didn't work properly.
Major kernel revision, you should be praising M$ that the drivers worked at all.
And then there was the fact that Vista was a very forward-thinking OS, and the average consumer-grade hardware at the time wasn't built to maximize Vista's potential. Once your hardware was adequate, Vista out-performed XP. Sure 7 is better than Vista, but that's not the point.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Vista bombed because MS didn't coordinate well with driver manufacturers and it was a buggy launch. And it was a fairly big shift from XP, the shift from vista to 7 is less significant, vista drivers tend to work fine in 7 where as that's not the case in xp -> vista.
Also Vista was a fairly bloated OS. It's memory consumption of core services was higher than windows 7. I can't even imagine Vista running on a netbook.
Vista eventually became a pretty good experience a few months down the line, but it's reputation was sown in, and it was still bloated.
Spike15 said:
3. IE8 is a good browser. I use it on s
ome of my PCs, and I have no complaints. Obviously there is some issue with standards compliance, but IE8 is a step in the right direction. If the web developers know how to properly take advantage of IE8's doctype sniffing, it's very close to standards complaint. There are a few things it doesn't implement, but for the most part it's pretty good.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The differences in browsers isn't as significant to the time when ie6 became very dated and things like opera and ff were clearly better for a time. Things are a bit closer, but IE8's javascript support is pretty lacking if you look at benchmarks.
ie9 looks to be much faster than ie8 and it's adding more hardware support for GPUs. Also if ie9 adopts Pivot's zooming scroll bar, that will be an amazing feature.

gom99 said:
Sigh, if you're going to insult me at least do it correctly.
Windows 2000 was a replacement for Windows NT so it was more business related than general consumer related. Instead of Windows 2000 replacing Windows 98 they released Windows 98 2nd Edition. Yes Windows ME was supposed to replace 98 but it was a failure, but that's just another one of MSes blunders on the way to XP.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Windows 2000 was the beginning of the end of Windows 9.x. Sure they released ME after 2000, but 2000 was really the end of Microsoft's dedication to 9.x (as evidenced by ME's performance...).
The only reason that it took so long for the market to shift was because driver manufacturers were deeply entrenched in 9.x and didn't want to develop for the new model that NT presented (which was a lot more restrictive since Windows NT was actually a proper, multi-user, hybrid kernel operating system rather than a single-user, monolithic kernel operating system which allow most (all?) drivers to run in kernel mode.
Windows ME failed (or, at least that's the story) for roughly the same reason. It was an attempt at reforming the Windows 9.x driver model, but instead people just stuck Windows 98SE drivers in it.
I've seen quite a few consumer desktops that were sold with Windows 2000. They're not so plentiful, but they exist, and most of the people who had them swear by them.
gom99 said:
XP united the fragmentation of the 2000 line and the ME line. But yes, I guess you're right XP was built from things they learned in 2000, failures of ME, and things people liked from their flagship consumer product at the time which was 98.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There's not really much different between XP and 2000.
gom99 said:
Vista bombed because MS didn't coordinate well with driver manufacturers and it was a buggy launch. And it was a fairly big shift from XP, the shift from vista to 7 is less significant, vista drivers tend to work fine in 7 where as that's not the case in xp -> vista.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
While what you're saying about driver manufacturers may be true, I disagree that Vista was a "buggy launch". I replaced XP with Vista (64-bit at that!) the moment it went gold, and never looked back...never had any serious problems with performance or compatibility either.
Now, I have to quantify that. I was running a new PC that was relatively top-of-the-line with hardware from big name manufacturers. Therefore, the driver support was good and the hardware was of the calibre that Vista was designed to capitalize on.
I ran Vista until Windows 7 RC, and in that time had 4 crashes:
3 BSoDs from nVidia drivers (graphics drivers still run in kernel mode... : ( )
1 full system lock-up from a hard drive crash (!)
You can't blame those on the operating system.
gom99 said:
The differences in browsers isn't as significant to the time when ie6 became very dated and things like opera and ff were clearly better for a time. Things are a bit closer, but IE8's javascript support is pretty lacking if you look at benchmarks.
ie9 looks to be much faster than ie8 and it's adding more hardware support for GPUs. Also if ie9 adopts Pivot's zooming scroll bar, that will be an amazing feature.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'll admit that I'm psyched about IE9 -- Microsoft looks like they're fully throwing themselves behind their browser for the first time since IE4 or 5.
As for IE8's JavaScript benchmarks, I don't consider poor benchmarking (and I'll admit that it's poor benchmarking) a lack of support per se. It's still lamentable, but IE in general has a lot more compatibility code than other browsers...trying to maintain/achieve standards compliance while still fully supporting "quirks" mode...
-_-

Spike15 said:
Windows 2000 was the beginning of the end of Windows 9.x. Sure they released ME after 2000, but 2000 was really the end of Microsoft's dedication to 9.x (as evidenced by ME's performance...).
...
There's not really much different between XP and 2000.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well I don't know about beginning of the end, since it was meant to run parrallel. Originally they wanted 2000 to replace 98, but it wasn't "there" for consumers yet, so it just replaced NT.
And the differences between 2000 and XP have to do with the consumer items packaged allong with XP as well as full support for things like gaming and such. Since XP was the merger of consumer and business users.
Spike15 said:
While what you're saying about driver manufacturers may be true, I disagree that Vista was a "buggy launch". I replaced XP with Vista (64-bit at that!) the moment it went gold, and never looked back...never had any serious problems with performance or compatibility either.
Now, I have to quantify that. I was running a new PC that was relatively top-of-the-line with hardware from big name manufacturers. Therefore, the driver support was good and the hardware was of the calibre that Vista was designed to capitalize on.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Even with a top of the line computer if you had the nvidia chipset on your mb, getting Vista at launch was not a good ordeal. The nvidia chipset is no small isolated chipset either. Not every single hardware configuration failed, and some machines did have a good experience with Vista at launch. But a significant portion did not, which cause a bad stigma for Vista.
On top of that, it took significantly more memory just to run a barebones version than XP. I forget the hard numbers, but I think Windows 7 takes half as much ram as vista did.
Spike15 said:
I'll admit that I'm psyched about IE9 -- Microsoft looks like they're fully throwing themselves behind their browser for the first time since IE4 or 5.
As for IE8's JavaScript benchmarks, I don't consider poor benchmarking (and I'll admit that it's poor benchmarking) a lack of support per se. It's still lamentable, but IE in general has a lot more compatibility code than other browsers...trying to maintain/achieve standards compliance while still fully supporting "quirks" mode...
-_-
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
IE9's success will be determined by how quickly they can release it. Firefox is already working on hardware acceleration too. IE is playing catchup as far as javascript, html5, and css standards are concerened. But if they can get that worked out, and get their hardware acceleration worked out. Extra features with a more pivot like style, and get it out of the door by the end of the year, they'll have a really good product at a really good time.

gom99 said:
Even with a top of the line computer if you had the nvidia chipset on your mb, getting Vista at launch was not a good ordeal. The nvidia chipset is no small isolated chipset either. Not every single hardware configuration failed, and some machines did have a good experience with Vista at launch. But a significant portion did not, which cause a bad stigma for Vista.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I had an nVidia chipset, as I had in most of my PCs up until my last one (Intel chipset -- core i7 x58 system), and I had no problems other than those specified.
I think that with operating systems like these though, the first major kernel revision obviously is not going to do as well as the second. With the first you have a major change under the hood, and the end user doesn't really understand why they can't just stuff in their old drivers and be good to go.
Plus, hardware manufacturers are still learning how to properly code for the new model.
Once the second revision comes out, everyone has it figured out. It's not really a fault of the operating system manufacturer, but more a necessary evil of the way things work.

Spike15 said:
I had an nVidia chipset, as I had in most of my PCs up until my last one (Intel chipset -- core i7 x58 system), and I had no problems other than those specified.
I think that with operating systems like these though, the first major kernel revision obviously is not going to do as well as the second. With the first you have a major change under the hood, and the end user doesn't really understand why they can't just stuff in their old drivers and be good to go.
Plus, hardware manufacturers are still learning how to properly code for the new model.
Once the second revision comes out, everyone has it figured out. It's not really a fault of the operating system manufacturer, but more a necessary evil of the way things work.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://arstechnica.com/hardware/new...it-paints-picture-of-buggy-nvidia-drivers.ars

M$ didn't coordinate with Driver manufacturers?!?! Come on!! It came out in beta MONTHS before the OS was even released ANYONE could download and try it. The manufacturers are lazy, simple. Is it no surprise that W7 has taken off, because the drivers for vista dont need much change so therefore manufacturers will do it but a large kernel change and manufacturers twiddle their thumbs and blame M$.
I used Vista for years and never had a problem.
Back to the phones!
In order of greatness
Android > iPhone > WM6.5 > WM6.1 > WP7
Android has the best mix of features with eye candy, and WM6.x is... well... windows 3.1 on a phone.

Jamoflaw said:
M$ didn't coordinate with Driver manufacturers?!?! Come on!! It came out in beta MONTHS before the OS was even released ANYONE could download and try it. The manufacturers are lazy, simple. Is it no surprise that W7 has taken off, because the drivers for vista dont need much change so therefore manufacturers will do it but a large kernel change and manufacturers twiddle their thumbs and blame M$.
I used Vista for years and never had a problem.
Back to the phones!
In order of greatness
Android > iPhone > WM6.5 > WM6.1 > WP7
Android has the best mix of features with eye candy, and WM6.x is... well... windows 3.1 on a phone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're putting the iphone that high really? Why do you like it? It's fluid sure but its like a fisher price toy in terms of what you can do with it. It's a program launcher with apps. The next release does look better with all the things they are adding but as of now it sucks if you have any ounce of nerd in you.
I'm not sure where WP7 sits as of now because it's not out yet but I've used Android and I currently use WM 6.1 here's my line-up.
WM 6.x>Android>iPhone

Kloc said:
You're putting the iphone that high really? Why do you like it? It's fluid sure but its like a fisher price toy in terms of what you can do with it. It's a program launcher with apps. The next release does look better with all the things they are adding but as of now it sucks if you have any ounce of nerd in you.
I'm not sure where WP7 sits as of now because it's not out yet but I've used Android and I currently use WM 6.1 here's my line-up.
WM 6.x>Android>iPhone
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You have to preface that ranking saying "for advanced users". Even just looking at the side-by-side they have on engadget...wm 6.5 dominates that considering that a few of their "facts" are just taking into account wm 6.5 stock.
But I do like that the iphone added some nice features, even though some of them are hypocritical, but that's apple for you. From what Jobs was saying, I thought Folders were too complicated, and people just liked swiping their fingers through 100 applications.

I wouldn't put iPhone > WM6.5. They're different, though iPhone keeps getting better, WM6.5 not.
Android, of course, beats them all.
Android >> iPhone = WM6.5 > WM6.1 = WP7
Since this thread is going too off-topic, I want to have my own, for my comparison. See here: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?p=6132000#post6132000
Sethos II said:
Here's my comparison between WP7, iPhone OS, Android and WM6.5!
It's been about time that somebody did it.
It's a work in progress, I will add and update things.
Feel free to post your comments, I will consider them for updates to the chart.
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

gom99 said:
Well I don't think you're trending MS correctly...XP was great and stable for it's time but it was a fixed version of windows 98. Windows 7 is a fixed version of Vista. MS usually needs a meh product to build upon to actually make a good one, or sometimes 2 meh projects like IE 7 & 8...but IE 9 looks pretty good so far if they can get it out the door within the year anyway.
You could make the arguement that the precedessor of wp7 is the Zune though...but MS is bringing that Zune experience and intregrating it with phone services, it's a way bigger conceptual step than 98 -> XP or Vista -> 7. We'll see how this all plays out as far as stability is concerned though.
That much is obvious...it's google's business model...produce free stuff, get people to use it...get as much data as you can from the user through their auto-opt-in policies to better target you with Ads. TV is a good market for google to target custom ads to users. But it's this same philosophy that causes me to dislike Google. However, I think that I'd preferr if Google showed me commercials I'm interested in rather than just watching whatever crap commericals the networks felt like showing me...but that's way way in the future, when set-top boxes are more just internet DRM'd devices.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
A fixed version of win 98 ?? They dont even run the same file system. They are so different. XP was built off of 2000

ilmar72 said:
A fixed version of win 98 ?? They dont even run the same file system. They are so different. XP was built off of 2000
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
"Multi-user" and "hybrid kernel" would've been the two biggest changes I would've selected for "they don't even [...]", but to each his or her own...

Spike15 said:
"Multi-user" and "hybrid kernel" would've been the two biggest changes I would've selected for "they don't even [...]", but to each his or her own...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'd have to go with you on that one. Win ME and below use hybrid 16/32 kernal while NT+ uses 32. That's a pretty significant change.

Microsoft's "Slam-dunk"

News is starting to surface, as I long suspected it would, that Windows 8 is going to support cross-platform silverlight apps, so apps that run on your WP7 device will also run on your PC.
If this means apps you've already purchased for your phone will be downloadable from the Windows 8 marketplace and runnable directly on your PC without further cost, then I say this feature will completely rock, and it will shake up the market. It will, IMHO, really switch people on to both Windows 8 and WP7, and help WP7 slaughter Android and iPhone.
Kudos to Microsoft for this stroke of genius.
It also ties in with Windows 8's enhanced cloud data support, which would be needed if both phone and PC are to share data in their respective apps.
If apps could sync their data to the cloud, then you could literally swap between devices and use the same apps which would have the same state info - You could be running a comic reader (such as Comica) on your phone, which has been set to read only particular comic feeds, be looking at last week's Dilbert, switch to your laptop/tablet, fire up Comica on that and be landed exactly where you left off on your phone, with the app set up to receive exactly the same feeds! It would be the perfect backup for your phone as well :O)
Awesomeness.

They are also bringing Silverlight to the Xbox (finally), so yeah - awesomeness indeed

Microsoft have always had great ideas to be fair. Their big problem is they are always so slow to deliver that eventually they're outdone by someone else by the time things come together.
I don't see that changing unfortunately.

If only we had MS employees with actual power in the company who read XDA and other tech sites regularly to see what the hordes want and implement all reasonable ideas in a reasonably short amount of time...

Peew971 said:
Microsoft have always had great ideas to be fair. Their big problem is they are always so slow to deliver that eventually they're outdone by someone else by the time things come together.
I don't see that changing unfortunately.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
considering windows 8 beta is coming out this year with a massive graphic overhaul and tablet mode, with ability to run appx and exe, I would probably think microsoft may be doing something right.
What really amazes me is that part of windows 8 can be scalable for mobile devices...something intel wants (due to the metro ui nature and easy finger friendly gui)
Again microsoft may be on to something. Heck I hate the ifad and I abhor the android 3.0 so microsoft's tablet offerings should be quite interesting

lekki said:
If only we had MS employees with actual power in the company who read XDA and other tech sites regularly to see what the hordes want and implement all reasonable ideas in a reasonably short amount of time...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
XDA is not really the place to find hordes of people. We are a select few, and a small percentage of the user-base.

Now, we actually need to see a device and prices.

well this would be an interesting change:
m$ making finger ui elements for desktops instead of the other way around.
can't see hords of people getting excited about silverlight though.
the only app (ok not really) I use or can imagine using between both is google maps. contacts, calendar, gmail already sync easily enough. bookmarks in ffox, history, etc, is this really a new idea ?

Jim Coleman said:
News is starting to surface, as I long suspected it would, that Windows 8 is going to support cross-platform silverlight apps, so apps that run on your WP7 device will also run on your PC.
If this means apps you've already purchased for your phone will be downloadable from the Windows 8 marketplace and runnable directly on your PC without further cost, then I say this feature will completely rock, and it will shake up the market. It will, IMHO, really switch people on to both Windows 8 and WP7, and help WP7 slaughter Android and iPhone.
Kudos to Microsoft for this stroke of genius.
It also ties in with Windows 8's enhanced cloud data support, which would be needed if both phone and PC are to share data in their respective apps.
If apps could sync their data to the cloud, then you could literally swap between devices and use the same apps which would have the same state info - You could be running a comic reader (such as Comica) on your phone, which has been set to read only particular comic feeds, be looking at last week's Dilbert, switch to your laptop/tablet, fire up Comica on that and be landed exactly where you left off on your phone, with the app set up to receive exactly the same feeds! It would be the perfect backup for your phone as well :O)
Awesomeness.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't think the goal is to be running the exact same app on different platforms. You can't really, the input methods are different and so are the form factors (any good iPad app is likely different from its iPhone equivalent). What we'll see is ~90% code reuse, where developers only need to change user facing parts of their applications.
Anyway, with the inclusion of Windows 8 and Xbox 360, the market for this app platform will be an order of magnitude larger. Developers should come flocking.

PG2G said:
I don't think the goal is to be running the exact same app on different platforms. You can't really, the input methods are different and so are the form factors (any good iPad app is likely different from its iPhone equivalent). What we'll see is ~90% code reuse, where developers only need to change user facing parts of their applications.
Anyway, with the inclusion of Windows 8 and Xbox 360, the market for this app platform will be an order of magnitude larger. Developers should come flocking.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Customers first, then developers. We need to see a device and price, everything else is just nerd chatter. There was these exact same talks years ago.

PG2G said:
I don't think the goal is to be running the exact same app on different platforms. You can't really, the input methods are different and so are the form factors (any good iPad app is likely different from its iPhone equivalent). What we'll see is ~90% code reuse, where developers only need to change user facing parts of their applications.
Anyway, with the inclusion of Windows 8 and Xbox 360, the market for this app platform will be an order of magnitude larger. Developers should come flocking.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Don't forget though that Windows 8 will have a touch-optimized GUI, so should be able to handle any app designed purely for touch, such as WP7 apps.
But I'm with you on the fact that they'll have to recompile the code for the two target devices though.

PG2G said:
I don't think the goal is to be running the exact same app on different platforms. You can't really, the input methods are different and so are the form factors (any good iPad app is likely different from its iPhone equivalent). What we'll see is ~90% code reuse, where developers only need to change user facing parts of their applications.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Exactly this. As long as MS does this right - by providing the same APIs on every platform - "porting" an app from WP7 to Slate to Desktop to Xbox (i.e. all three screens) will be as easy as designing different UIs for each platform.
vetvito said:
Customers first, then developers. We need to see a device and price, everything else is just nerd chatter. There was these exact same talks years ago.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're wrong though. Developers did flock to WP7. They have flocked to the Xbox. There are droves of them for Windows in general.
While apps does not a platform make, it sure as hell helps and since MS has the best developer tools in the industry ... well, developers will develop for their products.
Not sure what devices and prices you want to see, this thread is about cross platform app support, not slates or tablets or TVs or mobiles.

emigrating said:
You're wrong though. Developers did flock to WP7.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, but if those WP7 devices don't sell well they will flock away eventually no matter how great dev tools are.

vangrieg said:
Yes, but if those WP7 devices don't sell well they will flock away eventually no matter how great dev tools are.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But they are selling. Don't know what data you've seen but everything I see indicates WP7 are selling fairly well. Hell, [some] devs make more money on WP7 than they do on Android.
As for devs running away - once the three-screens and a cloud scenario is all ironed out there really is no point in developers leaving. The Xbox is already doing great for games, the PC is doing great for apps - if you are a developer for either of these and you can suddenly release for the other platforms without investing tons of time and money, you will.

Peew971 said:
Microsoft have always had great ideas to be fair. Their big problem is they are always so slow to deliver that eventually they're outdone by someone else by the time things come together.
I don't see that changing unfortunately.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, because we've seen how well OSX has outdone Microsoft feature wise... Microsoft is always the most innovated company, they've just never focused on being 'pretty' until recently... You thrown in a little make-up with the juggernaut ideas they bring to the world and it's hard to argue that they'll snatch back that number one spot in no time, regardless of pricing... The MacBooks are severely overpriced and still sell because they're pretty...

emigrating said:
But they are selling. Don't know what data you've seen but everything I see indicates WP7 are selling fairly well. Hell, [some] devs make more money on WP7 than they do on Android.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have no idea how well they are selling. I'm actually not saying they aren't. I don't know. However, all I've seen so far was that sales are decent given the circumstances - few devices, very limited number of markets, only half the carriers in the US etc. etc. In order for all devs to make a lot of money WP7 will have to sell much more phones than now. If it doesn't happen within a year or so they won't be too happy. I'm not suggesting that it will happen though.
emigrating said:
As for devs running away - once the three-screens and a cloud scenario is all ironed out there really is no point in developers leaving. The Xbox is already doing great for games, the PC is doing great for apps - if you are a developer for either of these and you can suddenly release for the other platforms without investing tons of time and money, you will.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Look, this three screen scenario is awesome. But I'll believe it when I see it. I have a Windows Phone, an XBox, several Windows PCs and a Windows Home Server. Windows Phone has this sync over Wi-Fi capability which is great. But I don't use it because my Windows PC is a notebook with an SSD and I don't have space there to keep all this music. I have it on my WHS, but does Microsoft let me install Zune there? No. I have some other music there, and I can stream it to my XBox. Does XBox use the awesome Zune interface to control playback? No. It shows me some pukeware stuff. And I have to use my PS3 to actually listen to music from my WHS, and XBox to stream Zune Pass stuff. ****, they don't even let me install their weird Media Center on my home server! Can I use my Windows Phone to control XBox playback? No. And so on.
Microsoft has been a horrible performer in terms of making their products work with each other. And sometimes when you think that something will obviously work between their products, you just can't imagine reasons why this shouldn't happen. But it still fails to happen time after time.
So while in principle this cross-platform Silverlight XAML-based awesomeness does sound thrilling, I've learned not to get too excited about opportunities coming from such things, knowing how Microsoft is an expert in screwing up interoperability.

Peew971 said:
Microsoft have always had great ideas to be fair. Their big problem is they are always so slow to deliver that eventually they're outdone by someone else by the time things come together.
I don't see that changing unfortunately.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Exactly what is going to happen. By the time MS releases Windows 8 (2012-2013) it will either have already been done (probably by apple) or no one will care anyway as they will have moved on to tablets as their main computing device. And I dont really see what the big draw is, I prefer fully featured programs on my pc rather than phone version with limited functionality due to the target device's shortcomings.

FiyaFleye said:
Yeah, because we've seen how well OSX has outdone Microsoft feature wise... Microsoft is always the most innovated company, they've just never focused on being 'pretty' until recently... You thrown in a little make-up with the juggernaut ideas they bring to the world and it's hard to argue that they'll snatch back that number one spot in no time, regardless of pricing... The MacBooks are severely overpriced and still sell because they're pretty...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
mmm... you are partially right: mac laptops are pretty. that's not why they sell though.
they have nicer keyboards, and the reputation of being used instead of maintained. no virus mess, no reboots, no bsods. the reputation is what sells them. I've never heard any person say "I just love our new Microsoft Windows Seven Professional Edition with Microsoft 9ffice and Internet Explorer 29 AAA"
its always " sigh... I love my mac"
hell macs are usually a step behind on specs and speed, and they still sell like hotcakes. pretty ? indeed !

ohgood said:
mmm... you are partially right: mac laptops are pretty. that's not why they sell though.
they have nicer keyboards, and the reputation of being used instead of maintained. no virus mess, no reboots, no bsods. the reputation is what sells them. I've never heard any person say "I just love our new Microsoft Windows Seven Professional Edition with Microsoft 9ffice and Internet Explorer 29 AAA"
its always " sigh... I love my mac"
hell macs are usually a step behind on specs and speed, and they still sell like hotcakes. pretty ? indeed !
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
MacBooks are sold primarily to college students who have zero idea of anything you just mentioned. When was the last massive virus outbreak? BSOD? Needed reboots? I'm not talking about $200 laptops here, I'm talking genuine Windows capable machines... Kids go after Apple products because they're cool & pretty, has zero to do with function or reputation... The iPhone has a reputation of horrid service, bad antenna placement, & overpriced plans... It still sells though... And Mac OSX or whatever they hell it's called now has a reputation for lack of software, incapabilities, and overall hindered use, yet I can tell you the majority of 18-22 year olds at my University want a new, shiny one...
Windows7 went far in taking function, and making it pretty. Windows Phone 7 did the same, took function, and made it smooth and pretty... They've lost some features in the short term, but they've accomplished their goals of making them consumer friendly and hip...
I'm not as pessimistic as a lot of these Microsoft/Windows/WP7 haters on this forum, I see a possitive outlook... Microsoft has never really done anything to make me think differently... I mean, people here have said "Apple will do it first" - how exactly? What 'new' feature has Apple EVER come out with? They take existing technology, make it look shiny, and market it. I give them all the credit in the world for that. But as far as beating Microsoft to something as innovated and incredible as cross device perfection? Nah, won't happen.

vangrieg said:
Look, this three screen scenario is awesome. But I'll believe it when I see it. I have a Windows Phone, an XBox, several Windows PCs and a Windows Home Server. Windows Phone has this sync over Wi-Fi capability which is great. But I don't use it because my Windows PC is a notebook with an SSD and I don't have space there to keep all this music. I have it on my WHS, but does Microsoft let me install Zune there? No. I have some other music there, and I can stream it to my XBox. Does XBox use the awesome Zune interface to control playback? No. It shows me some pukeware stuff. And I have to use my PS3 to actually listen to music from my WHS, and XBox to stream Zune Pass stuff. ****, they don't even let me install their weird Media Center on my home server! Can I use my Windows Phone to control XBox playback? No. And so on.
Microsoft has been a horrible performer in terms of making their products work with each other. And sometimes when you think that something will obviously work between their products, you just can't imagine reasons why this shouldn't happen. But it still fails to happen time after time.
So while in principle this cross-platform Silverlight XAML-based awesomeness does sound thrilling, I've learned not to get too excited about opportunities coming from such things, knowing how Microsoft is an expert in screwing up interoperability.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Finally, someone who feels my frustration. Its like all departments at Microsoft try their best to work against each other. Sometimes they get it right though.

Windows 8 to be the Windows Phone 7 Apollo update?

Just skimming the news. Anyone know (links please) otherwise than these claims ?
http://www.knowyourcell.com/news/1219326/windows_8_to_be_the_windows_phone_7_apollo_update.html
Source ^
Text:
Jan 25, 2012
"Renowned blogger and editor of Russian website Mobile-Review has let slip that the Windows 8 update we're looking forward to may actually be codenamed Windows Phone Apollo.
Eldar posted a tweet saying, 'Do u know that windows phone 8 os is special? May be we even dont see word phone here but that's apollo and oct2012'
This was quickly followed by a post stating Windows Phone 7 apps won't be compatible with Windows 8:
'WP8 os isn't compatible with wp7 on app level (u need to rewrite all apps). Thats another os core with metro ui...'
Just what is Mutazin suggesting here?
Will we see a separate mobile OS called Windows Phone 8, or will that be Windows Phone 7 - but a newer version?
Also, Nvidia's CEO mentioned last year that Windows Phone 7 apps would work natively on Windows 8.
Although Eldar Murtazin is very often correct with his predictions, he sometimes is way off the mark. We sincerely hope he's wrong about Windows Phone 7 apps not working on Windows 8.
After all, there are very few spectacular ones our there - surely Microsoft wouldn't want to start again?"

If it's better than windows Phone 7 then that would be great, but if it's crapy then no. I can already see disaster with people having to re-write and re-buy apps. I don't know about MS now days, some one over there must be hitting the crack pipe pretty hard.

Eldar is a moron. It has been outright stated by two much more competent sources that wp7 apps would work on windows 8.

z33dev33l said:
Eldar is a moron. It has been outright stated by two much more competent sources that wp7 apps would work on windows 8.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ok, cool, but did you forget the links ?

Nope, no need to dig from a mobile device. Both Nvidia and a Microsoft rep said that it'd be done. NVIDIA stated it outright, and Microsoft said that you'd be able to exit a game on your phone and pick up where you left off on your windows 8 enabled PC. I am interested in seeing how games with accelerometer controls transition or if that will require further support from the dev. Only time will tell.
Eldar was speaking ill of Mango 4 months before the beta was leaked, he's an analyst, if he's right, he predicted the future. If he's wrong, well he's not a fortune teller, his industry is a joke.

ohgood said:
Ok, cool, but did you forget the links ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
z33dev33l said:
Nope, no need to dig from a mobile device. Both Nvidia and a Microsoft rep said that it'd be done. NVIDIA stated it outright, and Microsoft said that you'd be able to exit a game on your phone and pick up where you left off on your windows 8 enabled PC. I am interested in seeing how games with accelerometer controls transition or if that will require further support from the dev. Only time will tell.
Eldar was speaking ill of Mango 4 months before the beta was leaked, he's an analyst, if he's right, he predicted the future. If he's wrong, well he's not a fortune teller, his industry is a joke.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Right here is the NVIDIA link --http://www.winrumors.com/nvidia-ceo-claims-windows-phone-7-apps-will-run-on-windows-8/
(date is obviously old. This new rumour in the OP's post is recent. So can't say if this link still holds the same value)
Morons will be morons.

Think about it this way wp7 marketplace is barely catching up to likes of android and ios. Why do you think any developers would bother redoing the apps for wp8. Paid apps maybe but not free apps so MS would be starting almost from scratch

z33dev33l said:
Nope, no need to dig from a mobile device. Both Nvidia and a Microsoft rep said that it'd be done. NVIDIA stated it outright, and Microsoft said that you'd be able to exit a game on your phone and pick up where you left off on your windows 8 enabled PC. I am interested in seeing how games with accelerometer controls transition or if that will require further support from the dev. Only time will tell.
Eldar was speaking ill of Mango 4 months before the beta was leaked, he's an analyst, if he's right, he predicted the future. If he's wrong, well he's not a fortune teller, his industry is a joke.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thats a big ass dream. Entirely plausible, but very unlikely to come from Microsoft.
Sent from my Nexus S using Tapatalk

Am I misreading or is everyone else.
NVidia and Microsoft said Windows Phone 7 apps will be natively compatible with Windows 8 the PC OS.
What Eldar is suggesting is "WP8 os isn't compatible with wp7 on app level". Honestly, that would be the most ridiculous move MS could make in the whole WP existence.
That would be so stupid that I refuse to believe it. Unless WP8 had to run WP7 in some kind of sideloaded enviroment and even then why would MS scrap and start over again?

nicksti said:
Am I misreading or is everyone else.
NVidia and Microsoft said Windows Phone 7 apps will be natively compatible with Windows 8 the PC OS.
What Eldar is suggesting is "WP8 os isn't compatible with wp7 on app level". Honestly, that would be the most ridiculous move MS could make in the whole WP existence.
That would be so stupid that I refuse to believe it. Unless WP8 had to run WP7 in some kind of sideloaded enviroment and even then why would MS scrap and start over again?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Windows Phone 7 development uses XAML from Silver Light. Microsoft is dumping Silver Light. Perhaps Eldar misunderstood and thought they were getting rid of XAML and the development tools of Visual Studio 2010 for Windows Phone 8.
http://everythingexpress.wordpress.com/2011/11/17/news-microsoft-kills-silverlight/
Also, it is possible that the apps will all need to be retargeted and recompiled to take advantage of any OS benefits of Windows Phone 8. This was true of Mango to get the fast resume. All a dev needed to do is upgrade the SDK. Change the target platform in the project. Then rebuild. Done.

nicksti said:
Am I misreading or is everyone else.
NVidia and Microsoft said Windows Phone 7 apps will be natively compatible with Windows 8 the PC OS.
What Eldar is suggesting is "WP8 os isn't compatible with wp7 on app level". Honestly, that would be the most ridiculous move MS could make in the whole WP existence.
That would be so stupid that I refuse to believe it. Unless WP8 had to run WP7 in some kind of sideloaded enviroment and even then why would MS scrap and start over again?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hmm....Windows Mobile? Besides its not like they would be losing much by starting over again.
Sent from my Nexus S using Tapatalk

vetvito said:
Hmm....Windows Mobile? Besides its not like they would be losing much by starting over again.
Sent from my Nexus S using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They'd lose support from the developers of the existing 60k apps for sure. Not allowing WP7 apps to run on WP8 would be suicide. That said, I wouldn't be surprised to see the development environment change to something closer to Windows 8. I just think we'll see compatibility for WP7 apps as well.

PG2G said:
They'd lose support from the developers of the existing 60k apps for sure. Not allowing WP7 apps to run on WP8 would be suicide. That said, I wouldn't be surprised to see the development environment change to something closer to Windows 8. I just think we'll see compatibility for WP7 apps as well.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I like the idea jvt put forward up there better.... recompile and carry on. It would on the other hand be a very effective weeding out process to trim down from 50000 redundant /replicative apps to ones that are solid and usable.

Silverlight is .net and the .net libs are platform independent. That means that 90% of your code is reusable either way. The goal is that you can take a shared library that contains your program logic and copy it from your windows pc to your phone without having to recompile or anything. The only thing that then needs rewriting is the user interface lib which must then take advantage of the underlying shared API. Infact it could even be that this is already the case. Either way anything in the future would only require little effort to sort out and if any w8 windows phone convergence happens that does cause incompatability, the mass amount of windows 8 support would be enough to make it neglible.

fed44 said:
Silverlight is .net and the .net libs are platform independent. That means that 90% of your code is reusable either way. The goal is that you can take a shared library that contains your program logic and copy it from your windows pc to your phone without having to recompile or anything. The only thing that then needs rewriting is the user interface lib which must then take advantage of the underlying shared API. Infact it could even be that this is already the case. Either way anything in the future would only require little effort to sort out and if any w8 windows phone convergence happens that does cause incompatability, the mass amount of windows 8 support would be enough to make it neglible.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not entirely true. .NET libs are not entirely platform independant. Ever write an app for you phone in C# and try to run it on your PC. Or write it for you PC and run it on your Phone. It doesn't work.
Phones use a compact dot net framework. Windows Phone 8, might supply an updated compact version. This may be incompatible with the previous version, just as the version on Windows Phone 7 is not compatible with the 3.5 version on Windows Mobile 6.5.
In fact, Windows 8 For Tablets is supposed to be getting WinRT.
Here is a negative slanting article, but seems pretty accurate with some exceptions.
http://www.i-programmer.info/profes...3323-windows-phone-7-sunk-by-silverlight.html
I suspect the tablets will also support a dot net compact framework for some time to come.
I've heard from multiple reliable sources at work and through different training companies that Silverlight is done. Development with it is just for phones (for now).
I am hoping they provide some XAML migration, so apps can be easily converted.
Actually, when reading the comments following the video here: http://www.neowin.net/news/former-microsoft-pm-silverlight-is-dead
XAML is coming to C++. With WinRT, C++ and native programming will be in Windows 8 on tablets.
XAML is the mark up language ued by Silverlight. Silverlight uses C#. But, since the programmer uses XAML to define the UI and Silverlight is used to glue it to the C# backend, something else could easily tie the XAML to the backend, so a minimal amount of work would be needed to to rebuild the apps affter Silver Light goes off into the sunset.

What MS meant was Windows 8, not Windows Phone 8. WP8 is, of course, an upgrade of WP7.
They said this because initially they said that crossing apps between windows 8 and phone 8 was possible.

For the folks that though Microsoft might break compatibility for existing apps, a tweet from Brandon Watson
@eldarmurtazin Rewatch Mix11 keynote. We were pretty clear on this. Any app built today will run on next major Windows Phone version.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

Here is the link to the same http://www.mobiletechworld.com/2012...paign=Feed:+Mobiletechworld+(MobileTechWorld)
Sent from my TITAN X310e using Board Express

Sigh... Sometimes I just wish Eldar would let his age old hate against MS aside and try digging up some useful information...
He's been such a douché since MS wouldn't let him run the official MS Russia site...

is apollo confirmed as wp7 1gen upgrade ? Or it will be designed for high ends ?

Reminder: Don't expect the 8.1 Preview to behave.

It's a beta! It's buggy, it's slow (at least on a Surface RT).
If you use your tablet daily, stay away from this thing. Wait for the full release.

SilverHedgehog said:
It's a beta! It's buggy, it's slow (at least on a Surface RT).
If you use your tablet daily, stay away from this thing. Wait for the full release.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
expecting bumps. so far it's good and I am not experiencing any hiccups yet. I very much like the changes.
cheers

Well, I found it rather buggy - though considering how I use it, I'm rather surprised how well it works in 8.0. Still, a warning might be a good idea - I'm sick of people attacking companies when beta software is behaving like beta software.

It's also so limited in terms of the number of devices and regions it will actually install in, I rather get the impression it was a real rush job to try and show that improvements are at least coming at some point.

SilverHedgehog said:
It's a beta! It's buggy, it's slow (at least on a Surface RT).
If you use your tablet daily, stay away from this thing. Wait for the full release.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don`t stand by you .I think the RT 8.1 is perfect。The experience on my surface RT is nice

seven7xiaoyang said:
I don`t stand by you .I think the RT 8.1 is perfect。The experience on my surface RT is nice
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I second that.. My Surface is faster and smoother now. Especially with IE11. I have no more lags or getting the Browser to freeze. I love it!

I have the 8.1 Preview on my Surface RT and it seems fine. I wouldn't caution anybody against it based on what I've seen so far.
Tk

ToddKlindt said:
I have the 8.1 Preview on my Surface RT and it seems fine. I wouldn't caution anybody against it based on what I've seen so far.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Jailbreak. 'Nuff said.

Using Spotify crashes the browser - worked perfectly in 8.0.

A reminder to all who find bugs: PLEASE report them to MS! This is our last chance to ask Microsoft to fix things while the software is in development. Once it ships and gets handed off to a maintenance team, changes will be much slower to arrive.
Note: while the continued restriction on running our own desktop apps is not strictly a bug, this is also a good time to complain to MS about that; it's a very easy policy for them to change, if they decide it would be worth it!

So far my experience with windows rt. 8.1 is very nice. I like the outlook 2013, the keyboard and the response time of the tablet.

GoodDayToDie said:
A reminder to all who find bugs: PLEASE report them to MS! This is our last chance to ask Microsoft to fix things while the software is in development. Once it ships and gets handed off to a maintenance team, changes will be much slower to arrive.
Note: while the continued restriction on running our own desktop apps is not strictly a bug, this is also a good time to complain to MS about that; it's a very easy policy for them to change, if they decide it would be worth it!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You need to read up on win32 vs. RT as well as some basic application architecture, then you will see why your complaint isn't valid.
Just because it has a pretty desktop and a run box doesn't mean apps magically work... Code for winform apps has to be compiled for arm vs x86/x64 to function and that just isn't going to happen. Explorer is there for a shim/stopgap.. By win9, will likely be gone for good.
This is like winnt on alpha and 2008 on titanium all over again... Except its now in the hands of consumers that don't understand what's going on under the covers.
MS should have never put a traditional desktop/explorer in RT and just finished the port of apps to modernui because its confusing to the average user.
Just think if apple had a shortcut in iOS to give you a macosx desktop that didn't run Mac apps..
Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

@libbycm: Despite being here even longer than I have, you appear to have no idea who you're talking to *or* what you're talking about.
I maintain the Ported Apps thread for RT, and have ported a few of them myself (and should get back into it with something more realistic than Chrome, which I still hope to get working Some Day Soon Now). I am quite *personally* familiar with the requirements of porting, the difficulties of working around missing functionality (almost all of which, it should be noted, is missing by design and not neccessity), and the realities of what an ARM processor can and cannot do.
First of all, .NET apps (including WinForms ones and even once that use COM or P/Invoke to system libraries) work just fine, no recompile needed. That's a pretty small portion of the overall Windows software ecosystem, of course, but it's a growing one and also it's one that would be seen as worth targeting by more developers if they saw an actual benefit to architecture-independent toolchains on Windows.
Second, and related to the first, .NET is far from the only architecture-independent language. Java (though IKVM, though .NET) kind of works on RT already; it wouldn't take much to make a serious platform worthy of an official port. Same for Python, and we already have Perl. Yeah, that's still miniscule next to the bulk of legacy x86 code, but it would nonetheless make RT a far more popular platform (for example, many of the Windows bittorrent clients are either Java or Python code, and some very popular games are written in those languages).
Third, even with the crippled tools that we have cobbled together to do our porting, and despite the fact that it's all done on our own time, we've managed a fair number of native ports already. There'd be far more if it weren't for the fact that we can't port closed-source programs (and many open-source ones don't happily compile under MSVC, which is the only RT-targeting compiler we have right now). Already, a growing number of programs are natively available on x64 - after all, it's just a drop-down selection and another click on "Build" in Visual Studio. Well, the same is true of RT. It wouldn't get legacy software, but there's no reason that *new* software released in the last half year - even proprietary commercial stuff - couldn't support RT. After all, it's more customer base for almost no additional work (supporting x64 is sometimes actually more work than supported ARM; at least ARM uses the same-width pointers as x86).
Fourth, legacy code is - by its very nature - older code and generally suitable for running on less-powerful systems. You mentioned Apple... but you failed to mention that when Apple went from 68k CPUs to PowerPC CPUs, and then from PPC to x86, they used mostly-transparent emulation layers to bridge those gaps. Yeah, the code ran slower, but it ran well enough for most purposes. Yeah, ARM is *less* powerful than x86, not more powerful (although you could argue that the same is true for some use cases when going from a G5 to a first-gen Core Duo), but we've also gotten better at this emulation thing. When Apple did it before, they hired the best folks in the business, and pushed the entire field of CPU emulation forward with their need to make it work. When Microsoft declined to do that, one guy on XDA took it upon himself, in his free time, with only a partial toolchain and no access to Windows internals, hacking on open-source pieces, and built a transparent emulation layer for RT. Microsoft's Windows application compatibility team almost certainly loses more man-hours in one day's bathroom breaks than @mamaich has been able to spend on that project to date, and yet some of those very same people who pushed the whole industry forward at Apple, doing things like inventing what is today called dynamic recompilation, now work at Microsoft. They have the expertise to make it work if they'd wanted to.
Fifth, Windows on Itanium failed (mostly; it's still being used, just not developed) because Itaniums were targeted specifically at the enterprise market but weren't very good even there; there's plenty of software for that instruction set in the aforementioned market. Alpha (never mind Windows on Alpha, which I actually know people who used and worked on) failed because DEC wanted outrageous sums of money for it, seeking high-end margins instead of embracing the commodity market. Had they done otherwise, they might even still exist as a company today. NT on MIPS and PPC was similarly niche, targeting brand new (and poorly-merketed) segments that didn't have great penetration in the ecosystem (NT for PPC was a server/workstation OS, not a MacOS alternative). Unlike all those achitectures, though, ARM is well established in the consumer market for commodity computers, and its market share there is growing. If Microsoft is serious about succeeding with RT (and I think they are), they should look at the success story in that market... and it's not Apple anymore. Despite Apple's huge first-mover advantage with the consumer market, Android is rolling over them. Yet Microsoft seems determined to repeat many of Apple's mistakes, despite having precious few of its advantages. They need to make themselves a better Android, not a me-too Apple clone.
Sixth, while Microsoft has made no secret of their desire to move to WinRT, I don't really forsee them having much more success with that than with their prior effort to move people to .NET; lots of small developers will go, but the big programs that are the movers and shakers of the Windows world will stick with the vastly more powerful, flexible, and (frankly) useful Win32 API. Porting an app to RT is a hell of a lot harder than porting x86 native code to ARM, though...