If you were MS, how would you do it?
-
Really? I don't much see the point. You'd still have to go to it to put stuff in and get it out. Besides, some bluddy woman would probably monopolise it.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
Mark_Wallace wrote:
Really? I don't much see the point. You'd still have to go to it to put stuff in and get it out.
Yes, that is true, and I failed to explain why I would love that. I used to fight with my former girlfriend over how much time popcorn should stay in the oven. She always kept it about one min further than detailed in the instructions (she liked them well burned), and I would always go and stop the microwave, to which she would go and start it again, and so on. In that case, I was actually praying for a remote.
Mark_Wallace wrote:
Besides, some bluddy woman would probably monopolise it.
As well they should.I'd rather not respond to that, temptation for a sexist joke is almost unbearable...
Full-fledged Java/.NET lover, full-fledged PHP hater. Full-fledged Google/Microsoft lover, full-fledged Apple hater. Full-fledged Skype lover, full-fledged YM hater.
-
I bought the Surface RT when it came out. While I get more use out of the iPad mini and before that the Motorola Xoom, the Surface does have its moments, particularly where remote desktop is concerned. I have Win 8 installed on a test box but don't use it. All my boxes run 7. Win 8 is the new Vista, the OS people love to hate. I don't use it beyond the Surface because it doesn't really do anything for me on a PC or laptop. Sure, I can zip past Metro and go into the desktop in Win 8, but it doesn't give me anything that Win 7 isn't already doing. It also bears a striking visual resemblance to Win 3.1. Yuck. I see 8 more as a bridge OS than a right now endeavor. In another year or two, that's the OS average people will be running since that's what they'll get on their new boxes. At which point Metro will seem normal. That's where I think MS is playing the long game, which I hope will benefit both Windows Phone and tablets. A massive installed base will lead to familiarity and the possibility that people will want their computer, phone and tablet to have a common look & feel. It's not a killer strategy, but it's a reasonable one. Personally, I don't know any other way MS could do this beyond the schizophrenic creature that is Win 8. You have to have the desktop. There are too many apps out there, and a great many of them would be diminished by a phone UI (I'm going to write a book, produce a feature film, mix an album or sling code on a tablet or my phone? Unlikely.) So, if you want to get in the tablet game, you have to have a second UI suitable for mobile, and somehow try to munge them together. MS is trying to bring Windows into the mobile era, but it's no small challenge. If they fired Balmer and hired you, how would you approach this problem?
Christopher Duncan Author of The Career Programmer Enjoy comedy? Watch Talking Head Games (SFW)
It was the right idea to rewrite the kernel for use with all types of devices. Win 7 and earlier still carries too much legacy code and the older mobile Windows OSs carry too much desktop baggage. It was the wrong idea to do the same for the GUI however. Screen sizes, input devices, and usage patterns are too different between a desktop workstation and smartphone. Similarly, the majority of professional users will not obtain their software through app stores. Not any time soon. So an app-centered GUI interface is entirely pointless for these users. Win 8.1 featuring boot into desktop is the right step, but it isn't enough. I don't care that it brings back the start button, I can live without it. But I do care that a lot of important functionality in Win 8 is optimized for touch based input and small screen sizes, both of which I don't have on a desktop: 1. I want a taskbar, and I want it to be always visible. Make it a ribbon if you must, but do not hide it! 2. Give me dialogs with clearly discernible actionable elments. Don't make buttons look like labels! Don't make labels look more important than buttons! 3. Don't require swipe gestures when you're not 100% sure the user uses and wants to use touch! This is only a real issue with apps, but vanilla Win 8 did replace a number of utilities with apps (see below), forcing even desktop users back to Metro and touch-style. 4. Don't require users to use Metro for functionality that is considered part of Windows such as music player or image viewer. Yes you can replace these apps with some free or commercial desktop programs of your choice, but a desktop user should be able to use an OS out of the box without the need to do so! To me, Win 8 is lacking media player, image viewer, mail program, and many other tools. No, I don't want to use the apps MS provided instead. No I don't want to be forced into Metro one-window-touch-mode everytime I do need one of these. No, I don't buy an OS that requires me to spend a lot of time to find and setup suitable replacements. P.S.: 5. Don't use aggressive default power saving settings in desktop mode. Working on a computer as a professional often does require staring at the screen for minutes without touching the mouse, or walking off checking an offline reference. It is the exception rather than the rule that I interact with the computer continuously. Blacking out the screen is ok. Powering down a device is not! I experienced and keep experiencing crashes with programs that don't respond well to s
-
I bought the Surface RT when it came out. While I get more use out of the iPad mini and before that the Motorola Xoom, the Surface does have its moments, particularly where remote desktop is concerned. I have Win 8 installed on a test box but don't use it. All my boxes run 7. Win 8 is the new Vista, the OS people love to hate. I don't use it beyond the Surface because it doesn't really do anything for me on a PC or laptop. Sure, I can zip past Metro and go into the desktop in Win 8, but it doesn't give me anything that Win 7 isn't already doing. It also bears a striking visual resemblance to Win 3.1. Yuck. I see 8 more as a bridge OS than a right now endeavor. In another year or two, that's the OS average people will be running since that's what they'll get on their new boxes. At which point Metro will seem normal. That's where I think MS is playing the long game, which I hope will benefit both Windows Phone and tablets. A massive installed base will lead to familiarity and the possibility that people will want their computer, phone and tablet to have a common look & feel. It's not a killer strategy, but it's a reasonable one. Personally, I don't know any other way MS could do this beyond the schizophrenic creature that is Win 8. You have to have the desktop. There are too many apps out there, and a great many of them would be diminished by a phone UI (I'm going to write a book, produce a feature film, mix an album or sling code on a tablet or my phone? Unlikely.) So, if you want to get in the tablet game, you have to have a second UI suitable for mobile, and somehow try to munge them together. MS is trying to bring Windows into the mobile era, but it's no small challenge. If they fired Balmer and hired you, how would you approach this problem?
Christopher Duncan Author of The Career Programmer Enjoy comedy? Watch Talking Head Games (SFW)
I'd blow the Surface RTs out the door for $99. They've already taken a writedown because of the warehouses full of them. This would put them into the hands of more users and get them used to the interface. When a newer, better, version comes out, they may upgrade because they've gotten hooked on the features and want better speed and battery life. It would give developers an incentive to develop for the product since the pool of potential buyers would be larger and possibly worth pursuing.
Psychosis at 10 Film at 11 Those who do not remember the past, are doomed to repeat it. Those who do not remember the past, cannot build upon it.
-
Christopher Duncan wrote:
How do you make one OS work for both desktop and phone ...
The question I would ask is Why? The two operating systems are used in different contexts (I think on different CPU hardware?) and I see no need to force them to be the same. Making desktop/laptop and phone the same to me is like forcing MS Word and Excel to be the same program. It could be done, but things are just fine with them separate. Windows 8 is the second coming of Microsoft Bob. The only thing they left out is the Fisher-Price logo.
-- Harvey
Why? Mainly because some highly paid marketing people have tended the heard and pointed them into the direction that "this is the future" There are no Laptops, there are no PCs.. Only devices.. Each persons digital needs and levels of advanced functionality are determined by the device.. But the "experience" should be the single common denominator. The idea is you buy a phone, using it becomes second nature, how cool if your tablet for school or work happens to work exactly the same way. You are more effective and productive on it and the phone becomes what you use abroad and in a pinch.. Then you set down in front of the laptop/ultrabook/desktop to do more powerful stuff. Video editing, photo editing, document creation, professional grade stuff. You again have the same core types of apps and a [now] familiar experience across the board. [break out into singing John Lennon "Imagine"]. the 2 flaws I find in the story.. A major generational gap. Starting with the phone as your gateway drug may work for todays people, but the billion plus users of 3-5-10 years ago are cast away. The other, there hasn't been clear evidence that even the mass consumer "wants" this either. I've had spirited conversations with colleagues and friends regarding the pros and cons of an all in one experience. I stand behind my opinion that Apple has little by little made OSX UI more iOS-ish, Google has always tried to make Android a be all OS with Chrome OS seeming to cover the other side of the spectrum, various Linux distros have tried to cover broader device spectrums.. And MS has shown it's willing to go all in with "ONE" experience. The first platform to achieve singularity, despite the angst of it's congregation and past business models, will be successful. I'm fortunate/unfortunate enough to have entered my career in the dot com bubble burst.. Back when it was still "smart user/dumb phone", light dimming desktops reigned supreme and laptops were for road warriors and executives to spit out crap when they weren't at their corner office. If it were me doing it.. I'd have phased 8 in much the same way Windows phased in changes since Windows 3.1. Win8 flat drab UI would have been a theme. Win8 would be desktop primary if no touch device enabled, giving you the win7 "upgrade" without spoon feeding everything Metro at day 1. Then, if touch is found and enabled I'd probably configure it as it is. Idea being Desktop is Desktop but if user wants the "familiar" experience as his or hers winphone, xbox, or surface.. Then it's t
-
I bought the Surface RT when it came out. While I get more use out of the iPad mini and before that the Motorola Xoom, the Surface does have its moments, particularly where remote desktop is concerned. I have Win 8 installed on a test box but don't use it. All my boxes run 7. Win 8 is the new Vista, the OS people love to hate. I don't use it beyond the Surface because it doesn't really do anything for me on a PC or laptop. Sure, I can zip past Metro and go into the desktop in Win 8, but it doesn't give me anything that Win 7 isn't already doing. It also bears a striking visual resemblance to Win 3.1. Yuck. I see 8 more as a bridge OS than a right now endeavor. In another year or two, that's the OS average people will be running since that's what they'll get on their new boxes. At which point Metro will seem normal. That's where I think MS is playing the long game, which I hope will benefit both Windows Phone and tablets. A massive installed base will lead to familiarity and the possibility that people will want their computer, phone and tablet to have a common look & feel. It's not a killer strategy, but it's a reasonable one. Personally, I don't know any other way MS could do this beyond the schizophrenic creature that is Win 8. You have to have the desktop. There are too many apps out there, and a great many of them would be diminished by a phone UI (I'm going to write a book, produce a feature film, mix an album or sling code on a tablet or my phone? Unlikely.) So, if you want to get in the tablet game, you have to have a second UI suitable for mobile, and somehow try to munge them together. MS is trying to bring Windows into the mobile era, but it's no small challenge. If they fired Balmer and hired you, how would you approach this problem?
Christopher Duncan Author of The Career Programmer Enjoy comedy? Watch Talking Head Games (SFW)
Probably I would have developed Windows On ARM, give it a fancy name and put on telephones and tablets, then launch an aggressive PR campaign, as a bonus I would have put a real Metro version of Word, Excel, PowerPoint and Outlook. But, given the time they had, they had to pull a half baked OS slapped into a well known OS, so they can at least gain some market share and pull some (reluctant) developers into their platform; not a very elegant solution, but better than nothing.
CEO at: - Rafaga Systems - Para Facturas - Modern Components for the moment...
-
I bought the Surface RT when it came out. While I get more use out of the iPad mini and before that the Motorola Xoom, the Surface does have its moments, particularly where remote desktop is concerned. I have Win 8 installed on a test box but don't use it. All my boxes run 7. Win 8 is the new Vista, the OS people love to hate. I don't use it beyond the Surface because it doesn't really do anything for me on a PC or laptop. Sure, I can zip past Metro and go into the desktop in Win 8, but it doesn't give me anything that Win 7 isn't already doing. It also bears a striking visual resemblance to Win 3.1. Yuck. I see 8 more as a bridge OS than a right now endeavor. In another year or two, that's the OS average people will be running since that's what they'll get on their new boxes. At which point Metro will seem normal. That's where I think MS is playing the long game, which I hope will benefit both Windows Phone and tablets. A massive installed base will lead to familiarity and the possibility that people will want their computer, phone and tablet to have a common look & feel. It's not a killer strategy, but it's a reasonable one. Personally, I don't know any other way MS could do this beyond the schizophrenic creature that is Win 8. You have to have the desktop. There are too many apps out there, and a great many of them would be diminished by a phone UI (I'm going to write a book, produce a feature film, mix an album or sling code on a tablet or my phone? Unlikely.) So, if you want to get in the tablet game, you have to have a second UI suitable for mobile, and somehow try to munge them together. MS is trying to bring Windows into the mobile era, but it's no small challenge. If they fired Balmer and hired you, how would you approach this problem?
Christopher Duncan Author of The Career Programmer Enjoy comedy? Watch Talking Head Games (SFW)
Christopher Duncan wrote:
MS is trying to bring Windows into the mobile era, but it's no small challenge. If they fired Balmer and hired you, how would you approach this problem?
I'd have made the win8 desktop mode a lot like old familiar Win7 -- start button & menu, option to boot directly into desktop mode, Aero, keyboard shortcuts, etc. Basically, if I thought the desktop mode was going away, I wouldn't have wasted all the development effort they did to break it so much and would have left it pretty much alone, with no new innovations. I'd have done all the new stuff pretty much the way they did it -- charms bar, start screen, metro interface, etc. I'd have introduced new systems with the Metro interface, like they've done. This way, their desktop product would have become the transition OS that would have bridged users between old and new. Many would probably have started with the old, but played with the new, and eventually transitioned over as they got more comfortable with it on other platforms. I suspect Microsoft didn't feel they could afford this long-term of a strategy -- they needed people converted right now -- so they strong-armed them into it and ended up with a revolt. And so history repeats :)
We can program with only 1's, but if all you've got are zeros, you've got nothing.
-
The main gripe people seem to have with WP8 compared to Android and iPhone is the lack of apps. In other words, you and I are holding WP8 back. :-O [Like you I have only installed Win8 on a test box so far] Soren Madsen
"When you don't know what you're doing it's best to do it quickly" - Jase #DuckDynasty
I wrote a long comment post on yesterday's "What Happened to Windows Phone" article...here it is: I've stuck with the Windows bandwagon for a long time and I'm still on it with my Samsung Ativ S (which as a device, I think is way better than anything Nokia has put out). I like the philosophy of the OS but I can see why general adoption is low...there are quite a few things that stand out and annoy me. Anybody who has owned a WP device and then played with an iOS device should know what I mean here, but iOS is a much smoother device. It's like WP is running at 20 or 30 fps and iOS is running at 60. Especially with scrolling, animation transisions, and zooming/panning in the maps application, everything feels much more fluid. The author discusses how smooth and fluid WP is on all hardware, and it *is* in the sense that it doesn't necessarily "stutter", but its just not as silky smooth as an iOS device. The Maps app is completely useless. Whenever I type in an address, especially in another city, there's a 25% chance that the app will actually find it. Usually, I get something in a completely differenty city. Nokia Drive has no problem finding it, Bing Maps online has no problem finding it, Google Maps has no problem finding it, yet my phone has no idea what the hell it is doing. Segmentation between the navigation app (Nokia Drive) and maps app is annoying. Maps has traffic overlays, direction list, better manual map control...and Drive has turn by turn directions. Switching between the two is annoying, I just want one fully featured app. Why can't I paste phone numbers into the phone app? Super annoying. Often times, the number isn't something I can click on directly and I just want to copy and paste the damn thing instead of writing it on a piece of paper and manually banging it out. The Facebook app JUST got an update that brings it up to a decent state. I say decent because it still has annoying quirks, like the lag between clicking one of the header buttons and actually getting feedback that the button was clicked...it literally takes a few seconds, sometimes leaving you to wonder whether it was actually clicked or not and thus causing you to click it again, which actually unclicks it. Thank god the "panorama" control is gone from the Facebook app...in practice, it just isn't very good. Instead of two clicks - "Menu" and then the section I want, I sit there swiping like an idiot across 4 pages to get to where I want. Not only that, you can't actually SEE what the sections further down are, so
-
I bought the Surface RT when it came out. While I get more use out of the iPad mini and before that the Motorola Xoom, the Surface does have its moments, particularly where remote desktop is concerned. I have Win 8 installed on a test box but don't use it. All my boxes run 7. Win 8 is the new Vista, the OS people love to hate. I don't use it beyond the Surface because it doesn't really do anything for me on a PC or laptop. Sure, I can zip past Metro and go into the desktop in Win 8, but it doesn't give me anything that Win 7 isn't already doing. It also bears a striking visual resemblance to Win 3.1. Yuck. I see 8 more as a bridge OS than a right now endeavor. In another year or two, that's the OS average people will be running since that's what they'll get on their new boxes. At which point Metro will seem normal. That's where I think MS is playing the long game, which I hope will benefit both Windows Phone and tablets. A massive installed base will lead to familiarity and the possibility that people will want their computer, phone and tablet to have a common look & feel. It's not a killer strategy, but it's a reasonable one. Personally, I don't know any other way MS could do this beyond the schizophrenic creature that is Win 8. You have to have the desktop. There are too many apps out there, and a great many of them would be diminished by a phone UI (I'm going to write a book, produce a feature film, mix an album or sling code on a tablet or my phone? Unlikely.) So, if you want to get in the tablet game, you have to have a second UI suitable for mobile, and somehow try to munge them together. MS is trying to bring Windows into the mobile era, but it's no small challenge. If they fired Balmer and hired you, how would you approach this problem?
Christopher Duncan Author of The Career Programmer Enjoy comedy? Watch Talking Head Games (SFW)
I would stop using the 'one OS to rule them all' approach and keep desktops and mobile devices running different operating systems and cater for both. I don't like mobile devices and I only use a basic mobile phone in urgent situations. They tried to do the same with .NET - if you ever read the sales bumf that came with .NET v1 then you would have thought it would be ruling the Cosmos by now. I would stop trying to bend the will of my customers by presenting them with zero options.
-
It's a good idea but you're still faced with the same fundamental problem. How do you make one OS work for both desktop and phone without sacrificing usability for apps on either side of the street? Windows desktop is tedious beyond belief on the Surface. Metro would be a challenge to port a full featured desktop app to without it being equally tedious. Not an easy problem to solve, to be sure.
Christopher Duncan Author of The Career Programmer Enjoy comedy? Watch Talking Head Games (SFW)
And Apple's desktop is any easier to use? From a Window's user, Apple takes some getting used to.
-
I wrote a long comment post on yesterday's "What Happened to Windows Phone" article...here it is: I've stuck with the Windows bandwagon for a long time and I'm still on it with my Samsung Ativ S (which as a device, I think is way better than anything Nokia has put out). I like the philosophy of the OS but I can see why general adoption is low...there are quite a few things that stand out and annoy me. Anybody who has owned a WP device and then played with an iOS device should know what I mean here, but iOS is a much smoother device. It's like WP is running at 20 or 30 fps and iOS is running at 60. Especially with scrolling, animation transisions, and zooming/panning in the maps application, everything feels much more fluid. The author discusses how smooth and fluid WP is on all hardware, and it *is* in the sense that it doesn't necessarily "stutter", but its just not as silky smooth as an iOS device. The Maps app is completely useless. Whenever I type in an address, especially in another city, there's a 25% chance that the app will actually find it. Usually, I get something in a completely differenty city. Nokia Drive has no problem finding it, Bing Maps online has no problem finding it, Google Maps has no problem finding it, yet my phone has no idea what the hell it is doing. Segmentation between the navigation app (Nokia Drive) and maps app is annoying. Maps has traffic overlays, direction list, better manual map control...and Drive has turn by turn directions. Switching between the two is annoying, I just want one fully featured app. Why can't I paste phone numbers into the phone app? Super annoying. Often times, the number isn't something I can click on directly and I just want to copy and paste the damn thing instead of writing it on a piece of paper and manually banging it out. The Facebook app JUST got an update that brings it up to a decent state. I say decent because it still has annoying quirks, like the lag between clicking one of the header buttons and actually getting feedback that the button was clicked...it literally takes a few seconds, sometimes leaving you to wonder whether it was actually clicked or not and thus causing you to click it again, which actually unclicks it. Thank god the "panorama" control is gone from the Facebook app...in practice, it just isn't very good. Instead of two clicks - "Menu" and then the section I want, I sit there swiping like an idiot across 4 pages to get to where I want. Not only that, you can't actually SEE what the sections further down are, so
I am not sure which article you are talking about. I did see a post in the Lounge, but I did not get where the poster was going with it - or coming from for that matter. I have never used an iPhone, so I cannot verify what you are saying regarding the comparison. I do however have a Nokia Lumia 920 and I don't recognize what you are saying about slow launch time of apps and definitely not the 'Sync' option in the mail part - I have never seen that sucker take longer than a second to start sync'ing. The same goes for waiting 5 seconds for the Facebook app to load. I do not see that. Looks like less than 3 seconds on my phone. I don't know if that is considered slow. I share your rant about the lack of separate volume controls and the slow development pace by Microsoft to improve the OS. I will add, that Microsoft broke something in the Skype integration. When I first got my phone and my wife called me on Skype while it was charging, Skype popped up and worked as it should. Now I have to have Skype open in the view to receive calls and messages. They need to fix that because it ticks my wife off and she yells at me. :sigh: I used WattsApp for a while, but uninstalled it because it was draining my battery. Lastly, I am a bit confused about something. Do you have Nokia Drive on your Samsung phone? Soren Madsen
"When you don't know what you're doing it's best to do it quickly" - Jase #DuckDynasty
-
I am not sure which article you are talking about. I did see a post in the Lounge, but I did not get where the poster was going with it - or coming from for that matter. I have never used an iPhone, so I cannot verify what you are saying regarding the comparison. I do however have a Nokia Lumia 920 and I don't recognize what you are saying about slow launch time of apps and definitely not the 'Sync' option in the mail part - I have never seen that sucker take longer than a second to start sync'ing. The same goes for waiting 5 seconds for the Facebook app to load. I do not see that. Looks like less than 3 seconds on my phone. I don't know if that is considered slow. I share your rant about the lack of separate volume controls and the slow development pace by Microsoft to improve the OS. I will add, that Microsoft broke something in the Skype integration. When I first got my phone and my wife called me on Skype while it was charging, Skype popped up and worked as it should. Now I have to have Skype open in the view to receive calls and messages. They need to fix that because it ticks my wife off and she yells at me. :sigh: I used WattsApp for a while, but uninstalled it because it was draining my battery. Lastly, I am a bit confused about something. Do you have Nokia Drive on your Samsung phone? Soren Madsen
"When you don't know what you're doing it's best to do it quickly" - Jase #DuckDynasty
Yes, Nokia Drive has been available on all devices for a while. MS and Nokia had an agreement that Nokia would get exclusivity for a couple months after launch but would then make it available to everyone. I just realized that Nokia Maps (or rather HERE Maps) was released to all devices as well...so I've been playing with it. It's better in some ways but worse in others. Traffic overlays don't appear to be working for Toronto (Canada), so now I need to juggle between 3 mapping apps :| At least the address location function actually works though. I may have exaggerated by 1 second, but from the moment of pressing the notification toast to the moment the message UI is displayed is ~4 seconds...but then it takes another second or two before the message contents actually load. Either way, it's about twice as fast on an Android or iOS device. Everything is. Most apps that need a splash screen on WP don't even bother on Android/iOS because it pulls up so fast. It's undeniably slower if you compare it to the same class of Android/iOS device, like say your 920 to an S3. I don't know why WhatsApp would be draining your battery...that does't make much sense to me. It should be tombstoning the app after you close it and then using push notifications after that. That said, the Samsung Ativ S has wayyy better battery life than the 920, which is one of the reasons I think it's a much better device. I don't know why that is, considering it is much lighter as well. But I can literally go 24 - 48h without plugging in depending on use, with pretty much everything including Wifi on.
-
Yes, Nokia Drive has been available on all devices for a while. MS and Nokia had an agreement that Nokia would get exclusivity for a couple months after launch but would then make it available to everyone. I just realized that Nokia Maps (or rather HERE Maps) was released to all devices as well...so I've been playing with it. It's better in some ways but worse in others. Traffic overlays don't appear to be working for Toronto (Canada), so now I need to juggle between 3 mapping apps :| At least the address location function actually works though. I may have exaggerated by 1 second, but from the moment of pressing the notification toast to the moment the message UI is displayed is ~4 seconds...but then it takes another second or two before the message contents actually load. Either way, it's about twice as fast on an Android or iOS device. Everything is. Most apps that need a splash screen on WP don't even bother on Android/iOS because it pulls up so fast. It's undeniably slower if you compare it to the same class of Android/iOS device, like say your 920 to an S3. I don't know why WhatsApp would be draining your battery...that does't make much sense to me. It should be tombstoning the app after you close it and then using push notifications after that. That said, the Samsung Ativ S has wayyy better battery life than the 920, which is one of the reasons I think it's a much better device. I don't know why that is, considering it is much lighter as well. But I can literally go 24 - 48h without plugging in depending on use, with pretty much everything including Wifi on.
Well, as I mentioned earlier, I have never used an iPhone so I can't really comment on your comparisons, but I don't feel anything is slow on my phone. There are certain apps that take a while to load their stuff, but I am thinking the eBay app and similar with a lot of data to load. It is possible they have fixed WhattsApp, but after I uninstalled it my phone could go for days without a recharge. WhattsApp would drain it in less than a day and I saw numerous comments in their review section saying the same. Soren Madsen
"When you don't know what you're doing it's best to do it quickly" - Jase #DuckDynasty
-
Well, as I mentioned earlier, I have never used an iPhone so I can't really comment on your comparisons, but I don't feel anything is slow on my phone. There are certain apps that take a while to load their stuff, but I am thinking the eBay app and similar with a lot of data to load. It is possible they have fixed WhattsApp, but after I uninstalled it my phone could go for days without a recharge. WhattsApp would drain it in less than a day and I saw numerous comments in their review section saying the same. Soren Madsen
"When you don't know what you're doing it's best to do it quickly" - Jase #DuckDynasty
It definitely isn't "slow"...but if you are doing a side-by-side comparison in a cell phone store or playing with your friends' devices to make a purchasing decision, there is a certain fluidity in iOS that can't be matched by WP. I spent some time playing with my lady's Galaxy S3 and the scrolling performance on my device is definitely better in comparable apps, like for example the Facebook news feed. The apps are practically identical after the recent update, and mine is clearly more fluid. iOS is a different story though, and it probably has a lot to do with the fact that the coding is done in a lower level unmanaged language. I investigated further into the Facebook loading time issue and the app does in fact take just as long, if not a tad longer to load the first time on her device, but it appears that the phone keeps it available in memory for subsequent launches. Turns out WP can do the same but its background application management system is kind of obtuse. I didn't fully grasp the background app handling until I played with it more just now, and I think it is kind of silly. As long as I don't hit "back" but rather hit the homescreen button, the app will stay running in memory and pull up fast for subsequent toast notification clicks and such...but if I get a toast notification and I'm in the middle of something, I want to look at it and hit "back" to get back to where I was...but that unloads the app instead of putting it into the background. I find it kind of strange that I can't go back to what I was doing and still leave Facebook running in the background. Rather, I have to look at the message, hit the homescreen button, then hold the back button to pull up running apps and find the one I was just using. Not particularly user friendly. If I allow an app to run in the background in the settings, it should just run in the background as long as memory is available instead of exiting when I "back" out of the app. I don't get why it would be treated differently if I back out or homescreen out. I also don't understand why the running app area (that comes up when "back" is held down) doesn't have an option to close the app. Why do I have to go to the app and then repeatedly press back until it goes all the way out to close it? Same applies to WhatsApp - it's very fast as long as I don't use the back button, which is stupid because if I click a toast notification I usually want to go back to whatever I was doing before. Oh well, what can you do? At least I learned some new stuff about my ph
-
I bought the Surface RT when it came out. While I get more use out of the iPad mini and before that the Motorola Xoom, the Surface does have its moments, particularly where remote desktop is concerned. I have Win 8 installed on a test box but don't use it. All my boxes run 7. Win 8 is the new Vista, the OS people love to hate. I don't use it beyond the Surface because it doesn't really do anything for me on a PC or laptop. Sure, I can zip past Metro and go into the desktop in Win 8, but it doesn't give me anything that Win 7 isn't already doing. It also bears a striking visual resemblance to Win 3.1. Yuck. I see 8 more as a bridge OS than a right now endeavor. In another year or two, that's the OS average people will be running since that's what they'll get on their new boxes. At which point Metro will seem normal. That's where I think MS is playing the long game, which I hope will benefit both Windows Phone and tablets. A massive installed base will lead to familiarity and the possibility that people will want their computer, phone and tablet to have a common look & feel. It's not a killer strategy, but it's a reasonable one. Personally, I don't know any other way MS could do this beyond the schizophrenic creature that is Win 8. You have to have the desktop. There are too many apps out there, and a great many of them would be diminished by a phone UI (I'm going to write a book, produce a feature film, mix an album or sling code on a tablet or my phone? Unlikely.) So, if you want to get in the tablet game, you have to have a second UI suitable for mobile, and somehow try to munge them together. MS is trying to bring Windows into the mobile era, but it's no small challenge. If they fired Balmer and hired you, how would you approach this problem?
Christopher Duncan Author of The Career Programmer Enjoy comedy? Watch Talking Head Games (SFW)
Personally, were I heading up the operation (which has PLENTY of cash and talent onboard) I'd have created a separate department or business-unit and create a completely SEPARATE product line for the tablet/phone market. MS choice to disturb the phenomenally successful Windows ecosystem was, IMHO, a major mistake. As you alluded to, there are way too many of us that love the desktop the way it is, particularly the refined experience that is Windows 7. You think they're having a tough time getting rid of XP? Windows7 will probably be here into the next millennium now! (Not really, but you know what I mean). What would have been the harm to make the distinction between a tablet/phone experience and the desktop one? Why try to marry them together? The result was predictable: an experience that confuses rather than just requires some learning. The consumer would have something new to play with but the serious user could continue their work without being disturbed. (And don't tell me that Win8 doesn't disturb your work flow - I wasted a year trying to work the thing in!) In my case I have integrated Apple's portable devices (iPad & iPhone) successfully and without much effort. They work pretty well together. I like the iOS ecosystem (iTunes) and it works well. Plus it doesn't disturb my well-tuned Win7 ecosystem that I use for everything else. Is it seamless? Not quite, but it's very close. The machines live together in peace. Microsoft is trying to take the "all or nothing" approach at this that *might* work, but in the case of a large segment of their user-base (me included) all it has done is help me dig my heels in and stick with the technology which already works well. I write desktop apps for myself and web ones for others. All the existing tools I have work well, why upset the apple (no pun intended) cart now? These tools I have will work for YEARS. Now, had Microsoft not screwed with all of this and try to fix EVERYTHING then I might have considered one of their solutions. As it is, I see absolutely NO reason to move on with Microsoft technology (new Office, new .Net, new anything) which is, I believe, patently NOT what they had in mind. There is, again IMHO, a very real chance that this whole thing is going to backfire, and in a major way, for Microsoft. Microsoft's solutions at Enterprise Level are nothing short of excellent. They are REALLY good at that stuff. Consumer level? Not so much. OK, my son-in-law loves his XBOX. Fine, but I don't want XBOX on my work equipment.
-
Quick, let's write an OS! I could use the extra money. :-D
Christopher Duncan Author of The Career Programmer Enjoy comedy? Watch Talking Head Games (SFW)
Its not about software, but about creating a religion.