Nowhere to go but up. Survey shows WP7 with 1% of U.S. smartphone marketshare.

[Hellhammer]

People said that the xbox wouldn't sell because people loved the playstation and nintendo brand so much. Look where we are now.

I don't think that is comparable though. One of the main reasons why X360 is so successful is because it entered the market first. It was launched about a year before PS3. On top of that, it was also cheaper ($200 difference between the cheapest launch prices). When you get into a market first, it's easy to generate sales since there are no alternatives.

Right now, the situation with WP7 is the vice versa. WP7 was released after its competitors. It's not cheaper than the others either (at least not significantly). Essentially, MS has none of the advantages it had with X360.

Uh ? There were no iPhone OS 1.0 apps. The App Store and the SDK were introduced along with iPhone OS 2.0.

Doesn't matter. You get my point anyway. Apps designed for older versions of iPhone OS/iOS don't usually work in the newer versions.

 

[KnightWRX]

Doesn't matter. You get my point anyway. Apps designed for older versions of iPhone OS/iOS don't usually work in the newer versions.

Yes, they do. I don't know of any APIs/Frameworks that have been deprecated yet. Some applications that worked based on quirks that got fixed don't, but then again, you should never rely on quirks and bugs to make your app work.

When developers work to make their apps for the new version using developer previews, it's usually to introduce the new features into the app, not to simply fix it.

The long winded hobby project I'm working on builds on 3.0/4.0 right now with not a single code modification and runs on both. I know, it has lived since the 3.0 days.

 

[AAPLaday]

I don't think that is comparable though. One of the main reasons why X360 is so successful is because it entered the market first. It was launched about a year before PS3. On top of that, it was also cheaper ($200 difference between the cheapest launch prices). When you get into a market first, it's easy to generate sales since there are no alternatives.

Right now, the situation with WP7 is the vice versa. WP7 was released after its competitors. It's not cheaper than the others either (at least not significantly). Essentially, MS has none of the advantages it had with X360.

Yes but the original Xbox was untested waters. It came out after the PS2 and still managed to grab a foothold for MS. I think it sold more than the Dreamcast and Gamecube. A solid start which the 360 picked up on and ran with.

 

[APlotdevice]

So if Windows Phone 7 was Windows Mobile 7 instead, you would say they are the same? Actually, iOS starts from 4.0. Prior to that, it was iPhone OS. I bet the iOS figures include devices running iPhone OS too. You can't run iPhone OS 1.0 apps on iOS 4.0, so that shouldn't be relevant.

Besides, Windows Mobile shouldn't be that popular anymore to actually have an effect on the numbers.

You're missing the point. Windows Phone is not just a new name. It is a completely different product which has zero compatibility and very few commonalities with its predecessor. Actually come to think of it, it's really like comparing iOS to Newton OS. About the only thing they have in common is the company which made them.

While Windows Mobile might not be a popular choice in stores anymore, I'm quite sure there are still a number of people who continue to use it.

 

[Hellhammer]

Yes, they do. I don't know of any APIs/Frameworks that have been deprecated yet. Some applications that worked based on quirks that got fixed don't, but then again, you should never rely on quirks and bugs to make your app work.

When developers work to make their apps for the new version using developer previews, it's usually to introduce the new features into the app, not to simply fix it.

The long winded hobby project I'm working on builds on 3.0/4.0 right now with not a single code modification and runs on both. I know, it has lived since the 3.0 days.

Why does this list exist then? By your logic, all apps should work fine in the newer OS. It being beta shouldn't break apps as you said all APIs are still there.

 

[APlotdevice]

Doesn't matter. You get my point anyway. Apps designed for older versions of iPhone OS/iOS don't usually work in the newer versions.

But apps with compatibility issues can be patched to run on the new version. And it's not like the ENTIRE back catalog is completely incompatible.

 

[boss.king]

Office 2010 and Office 2007 are basically the same thing. People despised 2007 because of the Ribbon interface, and had gotten used to it by 2010, hence why it's now "quality". It's not better or worse, just a new release with new features 1% of the population will use. Most people still use only features that were available in Word 6.0.

Windows 7 is Windows Vista with a new UI and the bugs fixed. Vista's problem again was computers that couldn't run Aero but were dubbed "Vista ready", the new driver architecture that dropped support for many legacy devices for which drivers never were made and a few launch bugs. Windows 7 still uses the same driver architecture that pissed everyone off, except now hardware has had time to catch up. Same for the Aero GUI stuff, hardware has caught up and now it runs fine on every computer sold. They got lucky to not have shipped a major bug like the "file copy" bug Vista had.

And IE 9 ? Really ? It's the "best" they've got ? They've been getting beaten around on standard support by open source projects and by a small europeen company that makes close to no money for a decade. IE 9 is still dead last in standard support out of all the major browsers. And yet it's their "best" ? Piss poor attempt by the biggest software vendor in the world if you ask me. By now, with their money and ressources, they should have the most top notch standard support out there. They just don't care about interoperability and they don't give a flying **** if web pages look like arse on alternatives platforms, including iPads/iPhones/Androids/Macs or any other browser for Windows.



Except all the "hatred" towards these products have been for aesthetic reasons. Lion isn't even any different from Snow Leopard, aside from new features which you aren't obligated to use (some of which are quite nice, Mission Control is superior to spaces/Expose by my experience and the added gestures are really good) and iTunes 10 just has black/white icons people don't like and the ping stuff you have to turn off, otherwise it is iTunes 9.

And seriously guys, you can't think of a failed MS product recently ?

Anyway, good software, bad software, no one should give Microsoft the time of day. After all the crap they pulled over the years and all the harm they've caused in the software/hardware industry, they should be left to rot while firms that respect standards and interoperability move on to become tomorrow's leader. We should never have a repeat of the 80s/90s/early 00s where Microsoft was the only option for a lot of things, unless you wanted to live on the fringe.

I'm on my phone so typing is a little hard, but I just wanted to say that I disagree with almost every point you've made. I use office 2007 on my current computer and had office 2010 on my last one (gonna upgrade it soon) and office 2010 was a lot faster (evening my vista machine). Windows 7 is leap and bounds better, maybe not in features but certainly in user experience and hardware requirements. As for IE9, I haven't used it much personally, but it's gotten great reviews.

I haven't used Lion and I'm not much of a fan of OSX to begin with , but from reviews I've read it sounds like Apples vista. A YouTube review I watched today by a self declared Mac enthusiast showed that it switched the direction of his scrolling as a default setting and launchpad seems like a waste of space. Again, I haven't used it but it sounds like a waste of money.

Lastly, I'd certainly give ms the time of day, apart from vista I've never been disappointed with their products, and they really seem to be stepping their game up. You say you never want to see the day where you only have one option, but seeing as you advocate ms being left to rot, wouldn't that only leave Apple? Kinda contradictory?

 

[KnightWRX]

As for IE9, I haven't used it much personally, but it's gotten great reviews.

I haven't used Lion and I'm not much of a fan of OSX to begin with , but from reviews I've read it sounds like Apples vista.

So wait, because it's gotten great reviews, it's not the least standards compliant browser ? You disagree with my point about it being the least standards compliant based on "reviews" ? It is the least standards compliant browser out there. For something that relies on interoperability like the web, this is one of the biggest glaring omissions. This is what led to the IE6 fiasco we're still stuck fixing.

You haven't used Lion but from reviews, it's "Apple's Vista" ? Apple's "we're getting a major class action lawsuit based on false advertising of our certification program for hardware" ? Where is this "OS X Lion Ready" certification program that Apple is getting sued over ? Don't let the few negative nancies convince you, Lion is just fine. It runs fine, it has no more quirks than SL had when it launched (and SL was dubbed Apple's Vista also...)

I'm sorry, but I'm dismissing your post. You disagree with me yet provide no facts whatsoever to counteract the many facts I've posted.

 

[roadbloc]

Except all the "hatred" towards these products have been for aesthetic reasons. Lion isn't even any different from Snow Leopard, aside from new features which you aren't obligated to use (some of which are quite nice, Mission Control is superior to spaces/Expose by my experience and the added gestures are really good) and iTunes 10 just has black/white icons people don't like and the ping stuff you have to turn off, otherwise it is iTunes 9.

Hurr, what? Aesthetic reasons? I care not for aesthetics, as long as the product works.

iTunes 10 has that awful Ping thing (thank god you can switch it off), major tag information issues with my library that iTunes 9 never had, it's freakishly buggy (especially in Lion) and is bloated beyond belief compared to iTunes 9.

Lion is pretty diabolical for an OS upgrade. Reduces dual monitor functionality greatly, Mission Control is a total mess, Launchpad is unnecessary and the entire OS is littered with embarrassing Finder bugs. The OS doesn't feel right, it's a bizarre mashup of OS X and iOS and not very well thought out at all.

iPhoto 11... well... where do I start? Nothing works as it should. I've moved onto Picasa.

Moving onto Microsoft products, 7 and Vista are miles apart from each other. The only similarity is the Aero theme and the GUI which is been roughly the same since Windows 95. Office 07 and 10 are also two totally separate products, I have no idea how you can justify them as the same. Major improvements in stability, integration, compatibility and features. Again, the GUI is the same, but who cares?

IE9 isn't the best browser, and Safari on OS X clearly beats it. But compared to IE8, 7, 6 and 5, it's a huge leap forward and defiantly a step in the right direction from Microsoft. Looking forward to what they have to offer in IE10.

I'm not looking forward to anything from Apple anymore. It all tends to be dumbed down and "iOSified." I say let OS X remain OS X and let iOS remain iOS. They are both good for separate reasons and devices. Merging iOS with OS X on the Mac has been the most appalling thing Apple have ever done since I started buying Macs. I'm far from impressed.

But hey, I'm sure my opinion is just 'anecdotal'.

 

[KnightWRX]

Lion is pretty diabolical for an OS upgrade.

Repeating the missinformation being spread here ?

Reduces dual monitor functionality greatly

Only for optional full screen mode of apps. Hint : Don't use full screen mode when you require 2 monitors. And since a full screen app uses its own space, it doesn't impact your other applications.

IE : Non-issue.

Mission Control is a total mess

It is ? I find it is fantastic. Spaces done right with Expose working fine for my needs (Application Expose! Apps each in their own space).

Launchpad is unnecessary

And I've never seen it since I've installed Lion... why would it be an issue ?

and the entire OS is littered with embarrassing Finder bugs. The OS doesn't feel right, it's a bizarre mashup of OS X and iOS and not very well thought out at all.

I haven't seen a trace of iOS since installing it. Oh wait, OS X and iOS have always been a mash up. They use the same kernel, display server and base frameworks. You're just repeating the non-sense being spread here.

Let's face it, to equate Lion and all its optional functionality to a OS that spawned a class action lawsuit over false advertising is very much hyperboling. Don't forget, Snow Leopard was also Apple's Vista. And so was Leopard... etc... If anything was Apple's "Vista", it was 10.0 and frankly, since it was a completely optional install and 10.1 was given out free...

IE9 isn't the best browser, and Safari on OS X clearly beats it. But compared to IE8, 7, 6 and 5, it's a huge leap forward and defiantly a step in the right direction from Microsoft. Looking forward to what they have to offer in IE10.

So they are still the worst browser out of all the major browsers out there, yet they are the corporation with the most ressources to put towards it. But hey, step in the right direction, too bad they couldn't fix their most glaring issue : Standards compliance.

 

[ct2k7]

Office 2010 and Office 2007 are basically the same thing. People despised 2007 because of the Ribbon interface, and had gotten used to it by 2010, hence why it's now "quality". It's not better or worse, just a new release with new features 1% of the population will use. Most people still use only features that were available in Word 6.0.

I didn't use Office 2007, I upgraded straight from 2003 to 2010. It is quality. From what I've heard, Office 2010 had partial rewrites which made it more efficient in that it had a lower startup time and less resource usage.

Windows 7 is Windows Vista with a new UI and the bugs fixed. Vista's problem again was computers that couldn't run Aero but were dubbed "Vista ready", the new driver architecture that dropped support for many legacy devices for which drivers never were made and a few launch bugs. Windows 7 still uses the same driver architecture that pissed everyone off, except now hardware has had time to catch up. Same for the Aero GUI stuff, hardware has caught up and now it runs fine on every computer sold. They got lucky to not have shipped a major bug like the "file copy" bug Vista had.

Absolutely not, a lot of things have been rewritten, most of the HAL has been rewritten but it still compatible.

My desktop from 2003 which came with Windows XP, ran Vista fine with it's GUI, and now runs Windows 7 fine with it's full GUI/Aero. It's got a crappy graphics card and only 1.5GB RAM.

Every software has bugs, some more prevalent that others, but that 'file copy' bug was something I didn't encounter, nor others that I know.

And IE 9 ? Really ? It's the "best" they've got ? They've been getting beaten around on standard support by open source projects and by a small europeen company that makes close to no money for a decade. IE 9 is still dead last in standard support out of all the major browsers. And yet it's their "best" ? Piss poor attempt by the biggest software vendor in the world if you ask me. By now, with their money and ressources, they should have the most top notch standard support out there. They just don't care about interoperability and they don't give a flying **** if web pages look like arse on alternatives platforms, including iPads/iPhones/Androids/Macs or any other browser for Windows.

When IE 9 was released, it pretty much had beaten a lot of browsers. Are they meant to finalise on standards which are constantly changing - they're not standards. On my Windows virtual machine, IE9 still continuously outperforms other browsers I have out there.

Except all the "hatred" towards these products have been for aesthetic reasons. Lion isn't even any different from Snow Leopard, aside from new features which you aren't obligated to use (some of which are quite nice, Mission Control is superior to spaces/Expose by my experience and the added gestures are really good) and iTunes 10 just has black/white icons people don't like and the ping stuff you have to turn off, otherwise it is iTunes 9.

iTunes is buggy, slow and resource hungry. That is horrible.

And seriously guys, you can't think of a failed MS product recently ?

That was a funny phone Cute, but funny.

Anyway, good software, bad software, no one should give Microsoft the time of day. After all the crap they pulled over the years and all the harm they've caused in the software/hardware industry, they should be left to rot while firms that respect standards and interoperability move on to become tomorrow's leader. We should never have a repeat of the 80s/90s/early 00s where Microsoft was the only option for a lot of things, unless you wanted to live on the fringe.

And no one should have to be forced to make decisions becase Apple things that a 7 inch device, looks the same as the iPad, in terms that it is rectangular, and has a screen.

They haven't harmed anyone, they've just provided an opportunity for others to accelerate. Apple respects standards? Remind me what happened to the FaceTime open standard?

 

[Rodimus Prime]

So they are still the worst browser out of all the major browsers out there, yet they are the corporation with the most ressources to put towards it. But hey, step in the right direction, too bad they couldn't fix their most glaring issue : Standards compliance.

On windows the title for worse browser I would say goes to safari which is by far the largest pile of crap. On osx it is OK and tons better than its windows version but still the worse of the big 3 for osx.
For me on windows I go chrome, ff, ie and god help me when I have to safari.

On osx it is chrome, ff and then safari but I have no issue using it.
IE 9 is heads over heals better than safari on windows.

 

[KnightWRX]

On windows the title for worse browser I would say goes to safari which is by far the largest pile of crap.

It's still heads above Internet Explorer in standards compliance. Let's face it, the Open web requires standards compliance in order to be what it needs to be : The Open Web, available to all without discrimination for platforms or browsers.

Internet Explorer fails at this. Thus, no matter what faults other browsers have, Internet Explorer fails at its primary mission : Displaying the Open Web.

And you know what I think of Safari, but I have to give them credit for standards compliance.

When IE 9 was released, it pretty much had beaten a lot of browsers. Are they meant to finalise on standards which are constantly changing - they're not standards. On my Windows virtual machine, IE9 still continuously outperforms other browsers I have out there.

By the time IE9 shipped, Opera, Firefox, and any Webkit browsers were already ahead of it in standards compliance. I'm not talking about final draft stuff, I'm talking finalized standards.

Acid 3 compliance for one. Those are all finalized standards, IE9 scores worse of the shipping browsers at the time of its release. That's just 1 example.

Hint : Microsoft doesn't want to Web to be a place of interoperability, that lowers their potential for vendor lock-in, something they had in the IE 6 days.

And no one should have to be forced to make decisions becase Apple things that a 7 inch device, looks the same as the iPad, in terms that it is rectangular, and has a screen.

They haven't harmed anyone, they've just provided an opportunity for others to accelerate. Apple respects standards? Remind me what happened to the FaceTime open standard?

When did I talk about Apple ? I criticize Apple on their "proprietary" crap at every chance I get. Don't equate "Microsoft bashing" with "Apple loving". I hate proprietary period, no matter who makes it. Microsoft SMB/Java/MAPI stuff, closed document formats are as bad as Apple's Airplay/Airdisk (seriously, there's plenty of open standards here...). I like options and choices in my hardware, haven't you seen all my posts about Android hardware ?

I'm an Open Standards and Interoperability guy.

 

[roadbloc]

It's still heads above Internet Explorer in standards compliance. Let's face it, the Open web requires standards compliance in order to be what it needs to be : The Open Web, available to all without discrimination for platforms or browsers.

Internet Explorer fails at this. Thus, no matter what faults other browsers have, Internet Explorer fails at its primary mission : Displaying the Open Web.

That's all well and good, but at the end of the day IE9 displays the websites I go on perfectly fine (Facebook, YouTube, MobileMe Mail, Google). So as far as I'm concerned, it's a great browser.

I couldn't care for this standards compliance rubbish and I don't think many people do. As long as it displays the websites needed without any problems and the program is stable and relativity bug free, people don't have a problem.

On Windows IE9 > Safari, simply because Safari is bloated, slow and likes to crash. I certainly don't think "Well, Safari is more Web Compliment, so I'd better struggle with that over the more stable IE."

 

[ct2k7]

By the time IE9 shipped, Opera, Firefox, and any Webkit browsers were already ahead of it in standards compliance. I'm not talking about final draft stuff, I'm talking finalized standards.

Acid 3 compliance for one. Those are all finalized standards, IE9 scores worse of the shipping browsers at the time of its release. That's just 1 example.

Hint : Microsoft doesn't want to Web to be a place of interoperability, that lowers their potential for vendor lock-in, something they had in the IE 6 days.

Microsoft specifically chose not the implement things which was where it failed the Acid3 test - simply becuase these features are being removed from web standard specifications, and and outdated.

All in all, only web developers and designers care about standards, the majority of people are web perusers. They don't care about standards, and IE9 does a pretty good job at handling most websites - it's even faster than Chrome on some.

When did I talk about Apple ? I criticize Apple on their "proprietary" crap at every chance I get. Don't equate "Microsoft bashing" with "Apple loving". I hate proprietary period, no matter who makes it. Microsoft SMB/Java/MAPI stuff, closed document formats are as bad as Apple's Airplay/Airdisk (seriously, there's plenty of open standards here...). I like options and choices in my hardware, haven't you seen all my posts about Android hardware ?

I'm an Open Standards and Interoperability guy.

They're all as bad as each other IMO, but I cannot use an operating system without having to use a closed standard.

 

[KnightWRX]

Microsoft specifically chose not the implement things which was where it failed the Acid3 test - simply becuase these features are being removed from web standard specifications, and and outdated.

They aren't outdated. All standards should be respected. There's a lot of legacy content on the web, and if I'm declaring my DOCTYPE to be HTML 3.0, Microsoft better damn well be supporting it by now.

Acid 3 also isn't stuff that is being deprecated. It's fringe error condition checking that is quite up to date.

All in all, only web developers and designers care about standards, the majority of people are web perusers. They don't care about standards, and IE9 does a pretty good job at handling most websites - it's even faster than Chrome on some.

Let me tell you : users care about Web standards when they have to use 2 browsers because the page doesn't display right in their browser of choice. Something I had to do for years.

They're all as bad as each other IMO, but I cannot use an operating system without having to use a closed standard.

Thank Microsoft. Exactly my point in all of this. Thankfully, things are changing as the industry moves to open standards and interoperability, dragging behind the behemoths kicking and screaming.

Obviously, I'm not discussing with guys who weren't using Microsoft platforms in the late 90s.

 

[ChazUK]

I couldn't care for this standards compliance rubbish and I don't think many people do. As long as it displays the websites needed without any problems and the program is stable and relativity bug free, people don't have a problem.

The lack of standards compliance on WP7 pre mango really ruined the experience when browsing on my Omnia. Sites like Google+ & the mobile version of this forum won't render at all. Some sites even revert to older text only WAP style sites thanks to the IE7/8 rendering engine. Thankfully in Mango, it's a lot better but still lagging behind iOS and Android with their WebKit based efforts.

I know this doesn't really apply to IE9 on the desktop but you can easily run into issues with a lack of standards compliance. Microsoft are taking steps in the right direction even if they are behind still. I wouldn't want to see any more websites "best viewed on Internet Explorer" any more.

 

[TheSideshow]

It's still heads above Internet Explorer in standards compliance. Let's face it, the Open web requires standards compliance in order to be what it needs to be : The Open Web, available to all without discrimination for platforms or browsers.

Internet Explorer fails at this. Thus, no matter what faults other browsers have, Internet Explorer fails at its primary mission : Displaying the Open Web.

And you know what I think of Safari, but I have to give them credit for standards compliance.



By the time IE9 shipped, Opera, Firefox, and any Webkit browsers were already ahead of it in standards compliance. I'm not talking about final draft stuff, I'm talking finalized standards.

Acid 3 compliance for one. Those are all finalized standards, IE9 scores worse of the shipping browsers at the time of its release. That's just 1 example.

Hint : Microsoft doesn't want to Web to be a place of interoperability, that lowers their potential for vendor lock-in, something they had in the IE 6 days.




When did I talk about Apple ? I criticize Apple on their "proprietary" crap at every chance I get. Don't equate "Microsoft bashing" with "Apple loving". I hate proprietary period, no matter who makes it. Microsoft SMB/Java/MAPI stuff, closed document formats are as bad as Apple's Airplay/Airdisk (seriously, there's plenty of open standards here...). I like options and choices in my hardware, haven't you seen all my posts about Android hardware ?

I'm an Open Standards and Interoperability guy.

Lookey, lookey. Acid 3 was modified for the times so IE9 scores 100/100 now on desktop and mobile. Looks like Microsoft was right.

Google employee Ian Hickson and Opera employee Håkon Wium Lie both announced changes to the Acid3 test on Saturday. The changes will allow more browsers to pass the test and focus on allowing the specs to change according to what’s best for the web. ”As the Web matures, we have made a concerted effort to improve the precision of Web technology specifications,” said Hickson in a Google+ post on Saturday.”We’re trying to simplify parts of the platform that still haven’t received broad use,” he added before explaining that the Acid3 test has been changed. “+Håkon Wium Lie and I are announcing that we have updated the Acid3 test by commenting out the parts of the test that might get changed in the specs.”