Related
New downloads check them out.
Here's the documentation:
What's New in Windows Phone 7 CTP Refresh
Download the new tools:
Windows Phone Developer Tools CTP - April Refresh
Finally these will work with the new version of Visual Studio 2010
Kloc said:
Finally these will work with the new version of Visual Studio 2010
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's the one I've been waiting for...
Other than that, MS really need to get their fingers out & give us an API for that panoramic scrolling!
Blade0rz said:
That's the one I've been waiting for...
Other than that, MS really need to get their fingers out & give us an API for that panoramic scrolling!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My thoughts exactly I can't wait to see what we can come up with when we get our hands on that API.
Updated documentation removes DivX from the list of supported codecs...
vangrieg said:
Updated documentation removes DivX from the list of supported codecs...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Good find, that's no good though. I wonder what made them decide to remove something like DivX? I usually reencode all my media to MP4 any way but a lot of videos out there are DivX.
Kloc said:
Good find, that's no good though. I wonder what made them decide to remove something like DivX?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Money? DivX support would involve licensing fees I guess. They mention "codecs", not "codec" removed, I just noticed DivX. Can't remember if MPEG4 Advanced Simple profile was on the list previously. No, this is no good. If the thing gets the industry average mediocre codec support it will lose a lot of appeal. Especially with no native coding, which makes third-party codec support impossible.
vangrieg said:
Money? DivX support would involve licensing fees I guess. They mention "codecs", not "codec" removed, I just noticed DivX. Can't remember if MPEG4 Advanced Simple profile was on the list previously. No, this is no good. If the thing gets the industry average mediocre codec support it will lose a lot of appeal. Especially with no native coding, which makes third-party codec support impossible.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not to mention we won't be able to get hardware acceleration on it unless OEM's are allowed to add that. They probably didn't want to pay the licensing fees that DivX wanted.
can anyone tell me what movie formats the hd7 supports?
mimicuk said:
can anyone tell me what movie formats the hd7 supports?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It depends on the Zune software, it converts video files on the fly
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/928192
mimicuk said:
can anyone tell me what movie formats the hd7 supports?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Here is a full list.
I would like to add that the transcoding or reencoding done by Zune is buggy! But luckily there is a way around that! ... someone should bring this to MS attention.
A solution to this issue can be found here:
http://www.marauderzstuff.com/PermaLink,guid,3f827e53-56ce-4d3e-b916-989d349bc9c9.aspx
Idk why wp7 doesn't support DivX. My Zune does, it didn't when it was first released but it did after a update from ms.
Sent from my HD2 Windows Phone 7 using Board Express.
I tried a few search but i cant find any answers..
Will the mango update include the following?
-bluetooth file transfer
-front facing camera support
-usb mass storage mode
-Divx Support
-office docs file tranfer via zune
-better office suite
Will the mango update include the following?
-bluetooth file transfer - NO.
-front facing camera support - Don't know.
-usb mass storage mode - NO.
-Divx Support - Maybe.
-office docs file tranfer via zune - Don't think so , maybe using skydrive.
-better office suite - what is wrong with it ?
-bluetooth file transfer - NO.. what do you expect, MS to let you send music which the other person should bought ? NO, thats piracy, but they could support image transfers.
-front facing camera support - Maybe...
-usb mass storage mode - NO. coping .xap just like that... hm, never ?
-Divx Support - no, they have their music and movie store and they expect you to buy there.. and there's no DivX there as I know. Anyway, zune automaticly convert your videos to supported format when sync.
-office docs file tranfer via zune - this would be good.
-better office suite - yeah, what's wrong with this one ? Maybe some small updates..
We don't know everything that's going to be available in Mango.
brummiesteven said:
We don't know everything that's going to be available in Mango.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
well Joe Belfiore did show off quite a bit at MWC like better office integration with skydrive instead of having a sharepoint server
uristic said:
-bluetooth file transfer - NO.. what do you expect, MS to let you send music which the other person should bought ? NO, thats piracy, but they could support image transfers.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In order to support file transfer, you need a file explorer first.
-Divx Support - no, they have their music and movie store and they expect you to buy there.. and there's no DivX there as I know. Anyway, zune automaticly convert your videos to supported format when sync.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Zune software and Zune HD player support Divx already. There is no reason other than phones themself don't support it (requires extra license feee).
foxbat121 said:
In order to support file transfer, you need a file explorer first.
Zune software and Zune HD player support Divx already. There is no reason other than phones themself don't support it (requires extra license feee).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You don't need a file explorer, you'd go into the hub eg pictures, long press on a picture and select share, via bluetooth.
Why would you need a file explorer? I swear some of you don't think before you post and just spin any feature question into a "we need a file explorer".. Anyway, I haven't heard any definitive answer about BT transfers for like images and contact cards... So I don't know why I keep seeing a "no" everywhere - unless I missed something from MIX
that is what i am thinking，ms could provide one button,by bypressing it,it could be shared via many other ways
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App
Joe also said, in the keynote, that he wasn't gonna get into the end-user changes coming down the pipe. So, we definitely know more is in the works but not what.
Office Mobile isn't that good compared to ThinkFree or especially Documents-To-Go. The document compatibility is great, but the actual app functionality leaves much to be desired... That's why people are wondering if they'll have a better office suite.
They're prolly working on a better version for iOS, though. That seems to be the way Microsoft does things these days.
N8ter said:
Office Mobile isn't that good compared to ThinkFree or especially Documents-To-Go. The document compatibility is great, but the actual app functionality leaves much to be desired... That's why people are wondering if they'll have a better office suite.
They're prolly working on a better version for iOS, though. That seems to be the way Microsoft does things these days.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You are aware of the fact that there are different teams for each project, aren't you? The team working on improvements for WP7 is not the same team that's busy with working on iOS applications.
I'm more than aware of that. That's precicely why iOS has WLM with Messenger Social and we still have a crappy People Hub with no 1st party IM client.
That is part of the issue with Microsoft's mobile strategy. A Mobile OS is only as good as its apps and services integration. If they can't get their own Office/Windows Live/etc. team to support their own OS better than a competitor's product, those are issues which need to be remedied.
That was my point. Good job on being oblivious to it!
N8ter said:
Office Mobile isn't that good compared to ThinkFree or especially Documents-To-Go. The document compatibility is great, but the actual app functionality leaves much to be desired... That's why people are wondering if they'll have a better office suite.
They're prolly working on a better version for iOS, though. That seems to be the way Microsoft does things these days.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
getting 1billion iphone users to BUY and get accustomed to M$ Office makes much better business sense than making a native application for all three of the wp7 users.
maybe we will see hard numbers of sales released if/when enterprise customers start using wp7 ?
ceesheim said:
-better office suite - what is wrong with it ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What is wrong with that? Word on WP7 is the crappiest implementation of Word I've seen.
It's pathetically crippled and limited app which is practically unusable in any professional situation besides reading. This crap doesn't even allow you to change font type lol.
uristic said:
-bluetooth file transfer - NO.. what do you expect, MS to let you send music which the other person should bought ? NO, thats piracy, but they could support image transfers.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
People just want to use their own files how they want.
Bluetooth transfer of files doesn't mean stealing anything. Do you really have so little brain to not beeing able to imagine people sending docs, videos etc? So what are you doing on xda than?
DivX is mostly MPEG4 Part 2 Advanced Simple Profile. And it's actually supported by WP7. The problem is that in real life DivX exists in .avi files, and this particular container format isn't supported. Now the weird thing is that .avi is Microsoft's own format, unlike .mp4 which is supported but comes from Apple.
vangrieg said:
DivX is mostly MPEG4 Part 2 Advanced Simple Profile. And it's actually supported by WP7. The problem is that in real life DivX exists in .avi files, and this particular container format isn't supported. Now the weird thing is that .avi is Microsoft's own format, unlike .mp4 which is supported but comes from Apple.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Lol that shows this crazy logic.
I really really like MS desktop OS.
But on phones..... Not really anymore
So I was on SuperTube (paid version) trying to play a music video uploaded yesterday.
This specific video had up to 1080p quality, and I decided to stream the 720p version on SuperTube. Five seconds later I received a "Open Video Error!".
After using Keepvid.com to download this specific video, it turns out the video was part of the new wave of WebM encoded videos on YouTube.
To further confirm this issue, I specifically looked for WebM encoded videos on YouTube, sent it to my WP7, and copy-pasted the video name into SuperTube to try. Same error.
We all know that Microsoft is not going to support the codec, and SuperTube depends on Zune to play the .MP4 contained videos from YouTube.
Also, in some cases, the native YouTube app is unable to play the videos.
It is important to note that YouTube still encodes 360p videos using H264 and not WebM, as I was able to play those fine on SuperTube. LazyTube tends to play most of my test cases, with exceptions.
So, here I am presenting this potential problem (as YouTube will completely more to WebM soon) with WP7 YouTube and Video codec problem. What are you thoughts?
Any Ideas?
PS: To further confirm that 360p videos work and 720p videos do not, I downloaded the videos and uploaded them to my phone directly through Explorer (using the registry hack to make the device appear) and the 360p worked, while the 720p did not.
I've read and heard from my friends reports that there are problems with HD videos on Android devices, too. Whether this is due to WebM or not I don't know.
The whole world must bend over backwards now because Google doesn't like paying. No single SoC supports decoding WebM at this time, so it's not even up to Microsoft. Whether we will see hardware support for this new codec is questionable because it's not at all clear whether it's clean in terms of IP and patents. With open source stuff, the one who implements something is sued, not the one who wrote stuff.
Serriously I dont see the need for Google to push WebM, H.264 is well supported, it's funny that google make a webM plugin for IE9 and MS make a H.264 plugin for chrome
DMAND said:
Serriously I dont see the need for Google to push WebM, H.264 is well supported, it's funny that google make a webM plugin for IE9 and MS make a H.264 plugin for chrome
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
native app on iphone is "missing" a lot of videos, many cant be played on mobile devices anymore. Also the copyrighted stuff or blocked in your country is getting worse. Its time for a good alternative to come up and all just switch away from youtube, unfortunately there is none and its a great service.
vangrieg said:
I've read and heard from my friends reports that there are problems with HD videos on Android devices, too. Whether this is due to WebM or not I don't know.
The whole world must bend over backwards now because Google doesn't like paying. No single SoC supports decoding WebM at this time, so it's not even up to Microsoft. Whether we will see hardware support for this new codec is questionable because it's not at all clear whether it's clean in terms of IP and patents. With open source stuff, the one who implements something is sued, not the one who wrote stuff.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Only Andorid 2.3.2 (or 3) and above support WebM. Lower versions do not.
You can decode in software, but LOL on a mobile device that is kind of laughable. Say bye bye to your battery as this overworks your processor...
Marvin_S said:
native app on iphone is "missing" a lot of videos, many cant be played on mobile devices anymore. Also the copyrighted stuff or blocked in your country is getting worse. Its time for a good alternative to come up and all just switch away from youtube, unfortunately there is none and its a great service.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
don't blame youtube for these issues. blame coyrights, drm, and people that think nothing should ever be redistributed. youtube is following what the lawyers say they have to.
ohgood said:
don't blame youtube for these issues. blame coyrights, drm, and people that think nothing should ever be redistributed. youtube is following what the lawyers say they have to.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I understand why. Its just stupid it has never been like this but as of recently there are a ton of videos being blocked. Even though the rights to broadcast have been always there and now they are just gone. So yeah no wonder people blame youtube if the exact same vids could always be watched trough officials channels then all of a sudden not supported in your country.
N8ter said:
Only Andorid 2.3.2 (or 3) and above support WebM. Lower versions do not.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Android 2.3.3 cannot add hardware support for a new codec if it's missing in the device SoC. Or can it?
I can't imagine hardware support for WebM appearing overnight unless it's the same thing as MPEG4 Part 10 (which is what MPEG-LA will be happy to sue the hell out of everyone over).
^ wow
http://m.engadget.com/default/artic...-it-webm-support/&category=classic&postPage=1
vetvito said:
^ wow
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wow what exactly? Is it true hardware support or software decoding?
It's probably software, but does it matter? Future SoCs may (most likely will) start supporting it in hardware because Google has the means to force feed it down consumers' throats. Once they finish transcoding all the YouTube content and switch to an HTML5 interface by default this can severely limit non-Android devices, especially if you don't want a device with Adobe Flash, since the site will stream WebM to your device.
Unless they keep H.264 versions as well, in which case I don't care.
But I don't like the way they are trying to force feed an inferior media codec down everyone's throats...
N8ter said:
It's probably software, but does it matter?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You answered your question yourself a few posts ago:
N8ter said:
You can decode in software, but LOL on a mobile device that is kind of laughable. Say bye bye to your battery as this overworks your processor...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
N8ter said:
Future SoCs may (most likely will) start supporting it in hardware because Google has the means to force feed it down consumers' throats. Once they finish transcoding all the YouTube content and switch to an HTML5 interface by default this can severely limit non-Android devices, especially if you don't want a device with Adobe Flash, since the site will stream WebM to your device.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not at all sure about it. Judging by how they are treating their own Android customers, the majority of whom aren't using 2.3.whatever with WebM support, they just don't give a damn. It'll be up to OEMs and chip makers. And those guys may get in trouble with WebM because of possible lawsuits, not Google. So it'll most probably end with software decoding as supplied by Google (although even that won't save them because Google doesn't protect their OEMs in patent and other IP issues).
But that's just my guess.
N8ter said:
But I don't like the way they are trying to force feed an inferior media codec down everyone's throats...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Exactly. I find this uber annoying. But not at all surprising.
vangrieg said:
Wow what exactly? Is it true hardware support or software decoding?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
read the article, you'll understand the wow. Google sux
Sent from my SGH-i917 using XDA Windows Phone 7 App
vangrieg said:
You answered your question yourself a few posts ago:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I meant does it matter in the grand scheme of things. Android phone users have gotten so used to poor battery life that most of them don't care. They'll just not use their phone for a couple days to post standby times on a forum and be happy.
What the underlying "what's it matter" meant (quite vaguely, I admit) what... Does it matter if it's software or hardware? Google's point is to promote their own codec by using their YouTube muscle, and they're going to make sure their own Browsers and Mobile platform are there first, which could potentially give consumers a reason to pick an Android phone over a competitor's...
So, does it matter if it's software or hardware if they are still accomplishing their goals (pushing WebM via YouTube down our throats and making sure Android is the first mobile OS to support it)?
Can you give a URL of a video that is not available? I think it's a bug in the software. YouTube is NOT going to encode videos in WebM exclusively. All videos in every resolution should be available in H264 and WebM.
This might change as soon as Adobe release a WebM capable Flash Player (10.4 maybe)...
Hades32 said:
Can you give a URL of a video that is not available? I think it's a bug in the software. YouTube is NOT going to encode videos in WebM exclusively. All videos in every resolution should be available in H264 and WebM.
This might change as soon as Adobe release a WebM capable Flash Player (10.4 maybe)...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I can't give you a URL, but as of two days ago, my colleagues with DHD couldn't view a single newly uploaded HD video on YouTube with the built in client.
This may be because of a different problem though, that WebM is at fault is just my guess.
Hades32 said:
Can you give a URL of a video that is not available? I think it's a bug in the software. YouTube is NOT going to encode videos in WebM exclusively. All videos in every resolution should be available in H264 and WebM.
This might change as soon as Adobe release a WebM capable Flash Player (10.4 maybe)...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
YouTube is encoding all new videos in WebM, and transcoding a lot of others. I think most HD videos are being encoded to WebM.
Who are are you to say what they should be available as? You don't own YouTube, Google does...
N8ter said:
YouTube is encoding all new videos in WebM, and transcoding a lot of others. I think most HD videos are being encoded to WebM.
Who are are you to say what they should be available as? You don't own YouTube, Google does...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think he meant they should be, as in "if you check, you should find that they are encoded as both" not that he was stating what policies Google should be using. Whether he is right concerning the availability of both formats, I can't say.
Sent from my SGH-i917 using XDA Windows Phone 7 App
I have just confirmed this further with many more recent HD updates (from 25th of April and onwards), as well as a couple of my own videos uploaded.
The 720p and 1080p versions ARE being encoded in WebM, while the rest of the formats are still in their older forms...
Leave it up to google to fragment the hell out of something.......
Here is what Ive noticed with youtube as of late...
"Vevo" videos(music videos by signed artists that are sponsored or something by Vevo) do not show up when searched for on my ipod touch or my girlfriend's iphone<<<< This is stupid and is recent. Maybe because of the no ads thing on ipod's or iphone...I dont really know. They do however work with fastcode's Supertube app which is great. I dont know how long this will last with Supertube but Im hoping it doesnt change. Somehow fastcode is able to write a workaround with their code I guess. Again I dont know. All the while Microsoft is having some sort of issue with getting a proper youtube app out there for some other dumb reason probably to blame on Google. However Microsoft does allow Supertube to break rules by allowing the download feature to keep going. Again this is weird.
Now Youtube is encoding all hd videos in some new format "WebM" which Im certain will further complicate things on the developer side of things. This is just confusing.
Im not saying Google should allow people to just use their service for free or without any restrictions but I do not like the fact that Google sucks everyone in by leaving everything open at the beginning and then closes it up once they establish dominance in the market subsequently leaving people stranded and with no other choices.
Just wondering... Trying to chat with my fiance.. EVO to EVO... Can't get gtalk to work.. thanks!
Sent from SynCity
Bump
Sent from SynCity
fring or qik by far
but fring allows you to chat up to 4 people and qik only 1 by 1 so i use fring but the better quality is qik
Both support ios video chatting
Ok ill redownload qik and give it a try... Never used it to chat... I loved its live streaming... Forgot about that...
Tried tango but it only works well on 4g
Sent from SynCity
I use tango, and love it. works good for me on 4g, 3g, and wifi.
I also like the fact that I can use it for any android to android video chat and iphone to android video chat.
Im sure fring does the same though.
Kornsaq said:
I use tango, and love it. works good for me on 4g, 3g, and wifi.
I also like the fact that I can use it for any android to android video chat and iphone to android video chat.
Im sure fring does the same though.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Agreed! Good for people on the dark side (iPhones)!
+1 for fring. The newer version s of Quik work much better, but still don't work well for me in slow 3G environments. Fring has proven to be more efficient, working quite well for me even under low bandwidth conditions.
Good luck!