Jump to content
|Topic||Stats||Last action by|
|Microsoft first in with carrier billing in major emerging markets||
|Happy Birthday Walid!||
|Wise Care 365 Free 3.35 Build 295||
|Microsoft to block Classic Shell in Windows 10: here is why||
Posted 10 July 2011 - 23:46
Posted 10 July 2011 - 23:50
Posted 10 July 2011 - 23:56
AS with anything, it is all relative.
For WP 7 it is focused around people so it is quicker to grab information about people and relationships.
Posted 10 July 2011 - 23:58
Posted 11 July 2011 - 00:05
Posted 11 July 2011 - 00:09
Posted 11 July 2011 - 00:22
It's annecdotal, but my wife really picked it up and ran with it so I'd say it's really easy for non-tech savy people to learn. I can't comment on how it compares with other platforms as it's my first smartphone. However, originally the ads for windows phone touted how fast you can get stuff done with them while comparing them to it's competitors.
I know that it's on WMPoweruser but:
Posted 11 July 2011 - 00:24
Sorry but that silly ad doesn't convince me. It's just silly and unprofessional. Compare that to Apple's ads which are so emotional and make people cry. Like the FaceTime ones.
Posted 11 July 2011 - 00:28
Posted 11 July 2011 - 00:45
Posted 11 July 2011 - 00:48
Posted 11 July 2011 - 00:55
Generally speaking, most people don't cram icons all over their Android homescreens, so the argument that Android gives you the freedom to access apps more quickly is pretty weak. In reality, even after two years of using Android, I prefer my primary home screen to be fairly empty and more about information than applications (time, weather, battery, notifications, calendar--stuff I can glance at, not stuff I'd necessarily tap). In that sense, live tiles actually make a lot of sense. The first thing most users--even power users--want to see when turning on their screen isn't a shortcut to Angry Birds. Anyone can visit any homescreen screenshots thread on XDA/PPCgeeks and see even the deified hacking community prioritizing enormous battery meters over frequently used applications--and these are the people developing the very homescreen apps praised for being more functional than alternatives.
Not that they aren't. You can take my Go Launcher EX from my cold, dead hands.
But arguing that an extra tap or an extra swipe is somehow a reduction in efficiency stinks of fanboyism and using obscure and unlikely scenarios as examples of superiority. ANYBODY can come up with a scenario where any platform ever written is superior. DOS 20 years ago may have been the most efficient OS ever written at changing which partition you're accessing at the moment (letter + : + return = three keystrokes, max), but who cares? All that matters is what 99% of users are more likely to do, and arguing that the desires or habits of 1% of users constitutes the importance of 'choice' is absolutely absurd, and the day 1% of users has sway over the direction of the market is the day technology falls into the dark ages.
Ultimately, it's about how you use your handset that defines how efficient it is, since many people prioritize different functions. If you primarily use your smartphone for taking pictures, social networking, messaging, and keeping up with schedules and dynamic information, WP7 is perhaps more efficient than Android/iOS. That doesn't make it any less of a smart phone, since the reality is, smartphones are nothing more THAN social/schedule/app devices, and all three platforms today are equally capable. If the freedom to hack and unlock is part of your definition of a smartphone, then I'm sorry, but you're wrong. The freedom to modify is not a part of the smartphone model any more than the freedom to change out components is part of the PC model (or else laptops wouldn't be considered personal computers). It's necessary to remember that people were calling Android a smartphone OS long before it had a Market, back in the early days when it was a horrific piece of crap--but what's new? iOS was a piece of crap when it first launched as well, and the vast majority of raving reviews focused entirely on mobile safari, and despite lacking basic functionalities like MMS, was hailed as the rebirth of the smartphone.
Wasting time on painfully useless semantics may be a great way to make yourself feel like you're making a point on the internet, but lacking perspective, the only people who'll ever agree are people who already do, and without the power to change minds, the love of arguing is nothing but douchebaggery.
Most people would use a smartphone for making calls, email, social networking and apps. Whichever OS allows you to perform those functions with less swipes/touches wins.
Posted 11 July 2011 - 01:36
It seems that it requires more swipes to get to an app because of limited real estate compared to iOS/Android where you can fit 20 icons(including the dock). I fail to see how the hub approach makes accomplishing a task easier. It's nice eye candy, but it doesn't seem like it's user friendly.
Posted 11 July 2011 - 01:44
Posted 11 July 2011 - 01:48