NeoBytes :) Introducing the Windows 95 Phone from Nokia

NeoBytes :) is an occasional feature that takes a step back from the big headlines, to take a look at what else is happening in the vast, scary expanse of the tech world - often with a cynical eye, always with a dose of humour.


Earlier today, Nokia revealed its financial statements for the third quarter of this year, and there was plenty for the company to be pleased about. Revenues were up to $7.8bn, profits were up to $162m and sales of its Lumia range jumped too - up to 8.8m, from 7.4m during the previous quarter. 

It was much-needed validation of Nokia's Windows Phone strategy, which hasn't exactly been a runaway success so far, and sets the stage nicely for Microsoft's takeover of the company's devices business, which is due to be completed next year. 

But as Nokia's time in the handset industry draws to a close, it could always have one last throw of the dice to merge its past glories and present strengths into an exciting/horrifying new abomination, as one YouTube video suggests. 

The video introduces us to "Rony Dive", vice-president for design at Nokia, apparently, who explains: 

We here at Nokia partnered with Microsoft to build the Windows Phone. With a clean design, solid hardware and usability, we believed we would attract hip, young, savvy consumers. Boy, were we wrong - we couldn't give these damned things away. So we decided to start over - first by trying desperately to switch to Android... but then Microsoft bought us." 


So if they couldn't conquer the world with the original Windows Phone plan, and they couldn't switch to Android, what's the next best thing? Why, an unholy fusion of modern Nokia hardware with the Windows of old, of course. Rony Dive explains that the device "features a fully functioning replica of Windows 95, and you remember how great that was... Please say you do." 

You really need to watch the video to embrace the full horror of the handset itself - although if such a device were ever to break free from the confines of parody video and into the real world, it would at least please a few die-hard tech-heads desperate to see the return of the old-school Start menu. 

Source: YouTube

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Microsoft releases Skype patch for Windows 8.1 to fix crash bug

Next Story

Twitter rolls out inline image and Vine previews to iOS, Android, and web

53 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Was that poke at people that dislike the start screen meant to be funny? Because last I remember nobody I know has claiming they want it on Windows phones (I would never buy a Windows phone anyway so it's irrelevant to me personally).

Hmmm, my Galaxy Note 2 runs Win 95 and 98 just fine

Very usable on the phone, but even more so if I hook up a monitor and use a BT mouse and keyboard. (For the people that have never used an Android phone, no, this post is not a joke).

runningnak3d said,
Hmmm, my Galaxy Note 2 runs Win 95 and 98 just fine

Very usable on the phone, but even more so if I hook up a monitor and use a BT mouse and keyboard. (For the people that have never used an Android phone, no, this post is not a joke).

Where did you get an ARM version of Win95 and Win98?

Or do you mean remote desktop? Because you can do that on any phone.

thomastmc said,

That sure is a lot of effort for 2 seconds of half smiles. Did you actually have a purpose for running them, or was it just for S&G research?

It was a "just to see if I can" thing.

runningnak3d said,

You seriously have never heard of DosBox?

Sure I have. Wasn't aware it was available for Android. I briefly considered that it might be what you're referring to, but decided that few people have that much free time on their hands

It didn't take but a few minutes after I downloaded the images from Usenet. I may have wanted to see some old school Windows running on my phone, but not enough to go through the install of building my own image. I mean I know the process -- so there was nothing to learn there.

They should make it, because it would be a change and as everyone knows - change is always a good thing.

Who cares about quality when you can have change for change's sake?

Athernar said,
They should make it, because it would be a change and as everyone knows - change is always a good thing.

Who cares about quality when you can have change for change's sake?

You're being cryptic, but I think you're confusing change with progress.

Or, maybe you just dislike change so much (if I'm interpreting your sarcasm correctly), that you can't see the difference between the two.

thomastmc said,

You're being cryptic, but I think you're confusing change with progress.

Or, maybe you just dislike change so much (if I'm interpreting your sarcasm correctly), that you can't see the difference between the two.

Change and progress are the same thing, it is a misconception that progress is always a good thing.

Like the stages of a terminal illness, progression is not always preferable.

Athernar said,

Change and progress are the same thing, it is a misconception that progress is always a good thing.

Like the stages of a terminal illness, progression is not always preferable.

Change in the negative direction is normally called a regression, not progress.

Athernar said,

Change and progress are the same thing, it is a misconception that progress is always a good thing.

Like the stages of a terminal illness, progression is not always preferable.

I have to believe that you're feigning ignorance in pretending that you do not understand the different meanings of "progress".


: movement forward or toward a place
: the process of improving or developing something over a period of time

2: a forward or onward movement (as to an objective or to a goal) : advance

3: gradual betterment; especially : the progressive development of humankind

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/progress

The fact that you chose to equate the progress of technology and science semantically with an interpretation of a timeline of the outcome of a disease speaks volumes. You're disgusted and frightened by change, and anything that has to do with it. This probably also extends to improvement and betterment, as those also require change.

rfirth said,

Change in the negative direction is normally called a regression, not progress.

You are mistaken. Regression implies accidental breakage, not wilful change.

Progression can describe any series of events that continues in an incremental manner.

Topics should be argued on merit, not merely if they are "change" or "progress".

Athernar said,

You are mistaken. Regression implies accidental breakage, not wilful change.

Progression can describe any series of events that continues in an incremental manner.

Topics should be argued on merit, not merely if they are "change" or "progress".

I wish I could tell someone close to you to buy you a dictionary for Christmas


2: a trend or shift toward a lower or less perfect state
a : progressive decline of a manifestation of disease
b (1) : gradual loss of differentiation and function by a body part especially as a physiological change accompanying aging (2) : gradual loss of memories and acquired skills

c : reversion to an earlier mental or behavioral level

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/regression


thomastmc said,

I have to believe that you're feigning ignorance in pretending that you do not understand the different meanings of "progress".

The fact that you chose to equate the progress of technology and science semantically with an interpretation of a timeline of the outcome of a disease speaks volumes. You're disgusted and frightened by change, and anything that has to do with it. This probably also extends to improvement and betterment, as those also require change.

Only a small-minded fool cannot see that progress is in the eye of the beholder.

No, quality and the assessment of such is what is important, not the bleatings of an intellectual infant hopping on the bandwagon, clamouring about "change" and "progress".

Athernar said,

Only a small-minded fool cannot see that progress is in the eye of the beholder.

No, quality and the assessment of such is what is important, not the bleatings of an intellectual infant hopping on the bandwagon, clamouring about "change" and "progress".

That's a very intellectually and emotionally mature response to an "intellectual infant". /s

You've been very wrong several times over, empirically. Get over it

thomastmc said,

That's a very intellectually and emotionally mature response to an "intellectual infant". /s

You've been very wrong several times over, empirically. Get over it

So you admit you're happy to accept "change" and "progress" at face value without actually evaluating it?

Great, that means I was right all along! Better luck next time champ.

Athernar said,

So you admit you're happy to accept "change" and "progress" at face value without actually evaluating it?

Great, that means I was right all along! Better luck next time champ.

No, chief... I evaluate whether change is progress. You've still been absolutely wrong the whole time

By the way, luck is irrelevant. Facts aren't lucky, they just are.

thomastmc said,

No, chief... I evaluate whether change is progress. You've still been absolutely wrong the whole time

By the way, luck is irrelevant. Facts aren't lucky, they just are.

Whooosh, the sound of the point flying over your head.

What a pity. Now you don't even see the pointless loop you have created.

Athernar said,

Whooosh, the sound of the point flying over your head.

What a pity. Now you don't even see the pointless loop you have created.

In my first reply to you I proposed that you might not understand the difference between change and progress. You proved me right, that you truly don't understand that difference.

Everything you've said since fits into a loop of proving me right, and proving that you understand less than I thought you did prior to the previous comment.

I do see it... This has become a pitiful, vicious cycle

thomastmc said,

In my first reply to you I proposed that you might not understand the difference between change and progress. You proved me right, that you truly don't understand that difference.

Everything you've said since fits into a loop of proving me right, and proving that you understand less than I thought you did prior to the previous comment.

I do see it... This has become a pitiful, vicious cycle

Hah, you still don't get it do you? Pitiful indeed, so I'll spell it out for you.

The view of what constitutes "progress" is often subjective and is not absolute, views change with time and thus so does the view of what was "progress" or not. Because of this, progress is no different to any other mere change.

Hence the use of the sarcastic "who cares about quality" quantifier in my original post. It's amusing because you actually agree with my core point of assessing quality being what is important, but it seems your emotional reaction has clouded your judgement. Shame.

Athernar said,
They should make it, because it would be a change and as everyone knows - change is always a good thing.

Who cares about quality when you can have change for change's sake?

Correct. This is a radical change from what we currently have, therefore it is better and anyone who disagrees is just resistant to change.

Athernar said,

Hah, you still don't get it do you? Pitiful indeed, so I'll spell it out for you.

The view of what constitutes "progress" is often subjective and is not absolute, views change with time and thus so does the view of what was "progress" or not. Because of this, progress is no different to any other mere change.

Hence the use of the sarcastic "who cares about quality" quantifier in my original post. It's amusing because you actually agree with my core point of assessing quality being what is important, but it seems your emotional reaction has clouded your judgement. Shame.

Criticizing certain specific changes makes perfect sense.
Questioning whether something specific that is widely viewed as progress is actually improvement makes sense.

This is not your position though, go back and read yourself. You criticize all change, and you criticize all progress.

You say that there is no difference between change and progress. You used the "progression" of a disease to show how progress can be counterproductive. You then go on to show that you do not understand the term "regress", or the term "progress". You never rectify your position on those terms with the facts, simply ignoring them.

You're backpedalling and trying to redefine your argument, which show's that you realize that you were wrong. That is progress

In terms of emotional responses, you're the person who was using schoolyard name calling and insults when I showed facts that contradicted your assertions. You used these shameful tactics instead of answering the facts. I think you should reassess who had an emotional response.

Edited by thomastmc, Oct 31 2013, 1:20am :

thomastmc said,

Criticizing certain specific changes makes perfect sense.
Questioning whether something specific that is widely viewed as progress is actually improvement makes sense.

This is not your position though, go back and read yourself. You criticize all change, and you criticize all progress. You say that there is no difference between change and progress..

You're backpedalling and trying to redefine your argument, which show's that you realize that you were wrong. That is progress

Oh dear, it looks like not only are you still wrong but we can add "poor reading comprehension" to the list.

Spoiler: There is a reason why the original post contains "Change for change's sake".

But please, do go on. Your backpedalling amuses me.

Lord Method Man said,

Correct. This is a radical change from what we currently have, therefore it is better and anyone who disagrees is just resistant to change.

Maybe the reason people accuse you of being resistant to change is your focus on change.

I don't think most people look at any radical change and just assume it is for the better because it is simply radical change. By making that assertion it suggests that what you really have a problem with is change, especially the more "radical" it is.

Athernar said,

Oh dear, it looks like not only are you still wrong but we can add "poor reading comprehension" to the list.

Spoiler: There is a reason why the original post contains "Change for change's sake".

But please, do go on. Your backpedalling amuses me.

Why even take the time to reply if you can't explain yourself?

The reason you're being so vague is because you can't be specific without contradicting yourself

thomastmc said,

Why even take the time to reply if you can't explain yourself?

The reason you're being so vague is because you can't be specific without contradicting yourself

I already explained myself, but you intentionally ignored it because it shows you missed the point. Besides, why bother to explain further when you didn't even read my original comment properly?

Really now, I have no idea why you take the time to reply when you know you've lost the argument.

Athernar said,

I already explained myself, but you intentionally ignored it because it shows you missed the point. Besides, why bother to explain further when you didn't even read my original comment properly?

Really now, I have no idea why you take the time to reply when you know you've lost the argument.

Do change and progress have the same meaning: No. You were wrong.

Is progress simply defined as the continuation of events in an incremental manner: No. You were wrong.

Is the correct term for describing the negative course of a disease regression: Yes. You were wrong.

Not to mention how you've constantly shown your disgust and fear of change itself, not a reasoned questioning of the merit of specific changes as to whether they are good or bad.

I think I am done here

(BTW, the best part of any argument on the internet is that people can actually read back and see what you said before, verbatim)

Edited by thomastmc, Oct 31 2013, 2:20am :

thomastmc said,

Do change and progress have the same meaning: No. You were wrong.

Is progress simply defined as the continuation of events in an incremental manner: No. You were wrong.

Is the correct term for describing the negative course of a disease regression: Yes. You were wrong.

Not to mention how you've constantly shown your disgust and fear of change itself, not a reasoned questioning of the merit of specific changes as to whether they are good or bad.

I think I am done here

(BTW, the best part of any argument on the internet is that people can actually read back and see what you said before, verbatim)

Oh that's just adorable, you pretend the prior posts explaining it to you don't exist as not to tarnish that precious overinflated ego of yours. D'aww.

Just as an icing on the cake, I'll leave this here for you to wipe your tears with: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_supranuclear_palsy

Buh-bye now!

tiadimundo said,
Someone should have told him how to pronounce "Nokia".

Wouldn't have bothered me if I hadn't read your comment before watching the video...

I kept watching the guy , his gestures and expression.
MAN , these people are trained to "lie" and make every crap product look awesome.
Its just a funny video wich actually depicts how stupid some buyers are.

This isn't funny at all, some videos made to make fun at companies or devices are really fun when they actually include the reality of an actual device like those videos about iPhone 4,4s,5,5s.

Edited by ChrisGarcia, Oct 29 2013, 9:41pm :