Windows Phone 7: Why It's a Disaster for Microsoft


Recommended Posts

I really can't understand why people keep raising this argument, almost as though we're still in 2007 and Microsoft is competing against first-generation iPhones and Android devices.

How the iPhone and Android used to be are irrelevant. Nobody cares. Microsoft arrived late and now has to contend with established competitors. First-gen WP7 devices against matured iOS and Android probably isn't the fairest comparison to draw, but the world isn't and never was fair. Deal with it.

First generation of ANYTHING will always ships with flaws. So if you're bothered by them, don't get a first generation device / OS. If you're willing to overlook them, find ways around them, tinker with stuff..get it.

I smell fanboism. Windows has had the worst security on it's OS for the longest about of time. If you really want to go there, you should see BSD or was it FreeBSD. It's been the most secure OS. I like to see your proof without biased or fanboism results.

I think you maybe need to learn something about OS security, and realize we're not using Win98 anymore, and most sensible people aren't using XP anymore either. Though XP is actually a very secure OS if used properly (hint, an admin account isn't properly).

and no, MS hasn't had the worst security for the longest time. that's something you have invented. and even BSD is only secure as long as you don't install anything on it, which makes it rather unusable. However as soon as you install apache on it, which is the most common usage. it's not very secure anymore.

You're on a tech forum now, throwing words like "MS is not secure" and "BSD" around, isn't going to make people here impressed by your knowledge, it'll just reveal your lack of knowledge.

First generation of ANYTHING will always ships with flaws. So if you're bothered by them, don't get a first generation device / OS. If you're willing to overlook them, find ways around them, tinker with stuff..get it.

The thing is its just a few edges that are flawed. The hardware is AMAZING (not flawed) and MORE than capable and MS promised OTA updates starting early 2011 for new features.

Most people dissing the phone will never pick one up and try it. There isn't anything "glaring" as missing and i'm sorry, the Office apps work and work really well. These are phones where the functionality isn't mean to replace a desktop but provide mobility to supplement the desktop. i expect as Office live is further integrated and cloud services entrenched more it will only improve.

First generation of ANYTHING will always ships with flaws. So if you're bothered by them, don't get a first generation device / OS. If you're willing to overlook them, find ways around them, tinker with stuff..get it.

Except that people like you are acting like it's sacrilege to point out these flaws, like Steve Jobs and his BS "boo hoo the tech press isn't cutting the iPhone 4 issues some slack" act. I think people deserve to know more about these issues, rather than just your attempt to gloss over them with "first-gen anything always has issues, now shut up".

Except that people like you are acting like it's sacrilege to point out these flaws, like Steve Jobs and his BS "boo hoo the tech press isn't cutting the iPhone 4 issues some slack" act. I think people deserve to know more about these issues, rather than just your attempt to gloss over them with "first-gen anything always has issues, now shut up".

These aren't flaws..

By your own failed logic iPhone and android are flawed because it doesn't include xbox live, Office 2010, Hubs and integrated people.

Flaws would be something like unable to send MMS (iphone ftl for years), Poor sound quality, short battery life, poor sensors, no ability to synchronize with services you use so on and so forth. None of which WP7 has any problem doing.

Except that people like you are acting like it's sacrilege to point out these flaws, like Steve Jobs and his BS "boo hoo the tech press isn't cutting the iPhone 4 issues some slack" act. I think people deserve to know more about these issues, rather than just your attempt to gloss over them with "first-gen anything always has issues, now shut up".

Did I say that? No. But when a first release of a device is clearly not aimed at corporate customers, pointing out flaws that relate to that is pretty stupid.

That's like taking a toyota camry and pointing out that it won't do 250 mph, hence its a crap car.

These aren't flaws..

By your own failed logic iPhone and android are flawed because it doesn't include xbox live, Office 2010, Hubs and integrated people.

Flaws would be something like unable to send MMS (iphone ftl for years), Poor sound quality, short battery life, poor sensors, no ability to synchronize with services you use so on and so forth. None of which WP7 has any problem doing.

I see you're trying to play with semantics.

There's a big difference between basic functions to allow businesses to use the phone, and fancy features like Xbox Live and a vastly crippled Office (which iOS and Android both have their own substitutes for). The only one failing at logic here is you.

And even then that was hardly my point. My point was that how people can get up in arms whenever an article publishes shortcomings in WP7, and how people try to rebut said articles by referring to first-gen iOS and Android. Thanks for missing my argument entirely and setting up a straw man.

Read Paul Thurrot's review of Windows Phone 7, its a game changer, its the OS that all new phones will need to be judged against.

http://www.winsupersite.com/mobile/wp7.asp

Do you honestly believe anything that Paul Thurrot publishes even if it's very poorly written, and after knowing that he's funded by Microsoft's marketing squad?

Do you honestly believe anything that Paul Thurrot publishes even if it's very poorly written, and after knowing that he's funded by Microsoft's marketing squad?

Better than infoworld, that hasn't published an article worth reading in about a decade now.

Do you honestly believe anything that Paul Thurrot publishes even if it's very poorly written, and after knowing that he's funded by Microsoft's marketing squad?

I believe it over the rubbish you posted. Plus I have my Samsung Omnia 7 so know how good it is.

This clown must have a different phone than I do (Focus) because I'm loving Windows Phone 7. Ditched my Galaxy S Droid and iPhone 4 (keeping the 4 till I sell it, it cost too much). Since the Droid was rooted, and iPhone has been Jailbroken forever, I'm not sure WTF this dude is talking about. Sounds like a fanboy tirade.

I see you're trying to play with semantics.

And your not?

There's a big difference between basic functions to allow businesses to use the phone, and fancy features like Xbox Live and a vastly crippled Office (which iOS and Android both have their own substitutes for). The only one failing at logic here is you.

What basic functions are missing? It makes calls right? It can sync up with exchange/gmail/yahoo right? It has an app market right? it has an office suite right? It has a ton of features you glance over because you want to right?. Office 2010 on windows phone is more then capable for what people would use it for. More so capable than android or iOS is out of the box by a large margin. You're grasping for straws.

And even then that was hardly my point. My point was that how people can get up in arms whenever an article publishes shortcomings in WP7, and how people try to rebut said articles by referring to first-gen iOS and Android. Thanks for missing my argument entirely and setting up a straw man.

Because they're not shortcomings. They're simply features that aren't present because the device is being marketed to the consumer market right now and they hardly show the phone as being a disaster by any means.

Because they're not shortcomings. They're simply features that aren't present because the device is being marketed to the consumer market right now and they hardly show the phone as being a disaster by any means.

Microsoft pretty much said that. But we're going to use it for business anyway. Makes calls, gets Exchange email, can be remotely wiped. Can't easily transfer business files without SharePoint or Cloud (we controll access to both). I'm good.

Speaking of it being v1.0, Bluetooth A2DP and AVCRP both work great. It took 3 hardware generations and 4 iOS generations for iPhone to work with AVCRP. Fanobyism is ruining the internet.

Did I say that? No. But when a first release of a device is clearly not aimed at corporate customers, pointing out flaws that relate to that is pretty stupid.

That's like taking a toyota camry and pointing out that it won't do 250 mph, hence its a crap car.

A more fitting analogy would be "dude this car wasn't designed to be driven outside city areas, we all know that, your review shouldn't mention problems that arise when you drive this car around the countryside."

And your not?

Of course not, I actually make an attempt to be intellectually honest. I'm happy to debate this point using any reasonable word you'd like to substitute for "flaws".

What basic functions are missing?

Maybe actually read the article and you might find out?

Because they're not shortcomings. They're simply features that aren't present because the device is being marketed to the consumer market right now

Sounds pretty much like you just defined what "shortcomings" are.

A more fitting analogy would be "dude this car wasn't designed to be driven outside city areas, we all know that, your review shouldn't mention problems that arise when you drive this car around the countryside."

Of course not, I actually make an attempt to be intellectually honest. I'm happy to debate this point using any reasonable word you'd like to substitute for "flaws".

Maybe actually read the article and you might find out?

The other thing you're forgetting is even though Android and the iPhone both launched with tons of things missing. They still had a competitor, Windows Mobile. Hell back then, and even today, feature wise its the best OS. Yes it had a lot of flaws, but in terms of what the phone could do...really nothing compares to it. And the iPhone / Android platforms still destroyed it.

People chose simplicity over features, and Microsoft is trying to replicate exactly that. Then you also have to take into account, a large number of people who buy a first generation device are early adopters. Corporations almost never buy first gen of anything since they have to make sure it works with whatever they have in place (and to see how it performs).

So yeh Microsoft omitting things like copy and paste, full exchange support (exactly like WinMo 6.5 had I mean), a full featured office suite sounds stupid to us..I mean microsoft does make Exchange, and Office..To a corporate client, it means absolutely nothing. They wouldn't be getting the device anyway even if it did have all those things.

(Note by corporate client I mean a company that buys phones for its employees, since lots of major corporations do).

Sounds pretty much like you just defined what "shortcomings" are.

That isn't my quote LOL :rofl: Stupid IPB.

Do you honestly believe anything that Paul Thurrot publishes even if it's very poorly written, and after knowing that he's funded by Microsoft's marketing squad?

I presume you can prove that?

Paul Thurrot may be pro-Microsoft but his reviews are still fair and frank. He generally reviews a product thoroughly enough to identify its pros and cons. If he feels the competition does something better than Microsoft then he says it. He's also quite honest and open about his relationship with Microsoft. In my book all those things make him reliable.

I certainly can't say the same thing about anyone who writes for Infoworld. In fact, their reputation is so appalling that I find it hard to believe that anyone would be silly enough to want to republish their crap. It's pretty hard to take you seriously when you associate yourself with this nonsense.

This article could also be titled

"I'm an Apple and iPhone fanboy and will hate anything by MS without even trying it. And if someone forces me to review one, I will only look at the flaws and ignore everything else, just like i ignore all the flaws of my perfect device"

At least it sums up the whole "article" if you want to call it that. but I'm sure the WP7 haters will hang on to this like flies to fresh dog crap. that's the purpose of it anyways.

Finally, an honest review. Thanks! :D

I presume you can prove that?

Paul Thurrot may be pro-Microsoft but his reviews are still fair and frank. He generally reviews a product thoroughly enough to identify its pros and cons. If he feels the competition does something better than Microsoft then he says it. He's also quite honest and open about his relationship with Microsoft. In my book all those things make him reliable.

I certainly can't say the same thing about anyone who writes for Infoworld. In fact, their reputation is so appalling that I find it hard to believe that anyone would be silly enough to want to republish their crap. It's pretty hard to take you seriously when you associate yourself with this nonsense.

He also reviews plenty of Apple products which POs me. I go there looking for up to the minute MS inside news and I have a new Apple product covered in varnish on the front page. hmm.gif

Problem is that its product will have a very bad name by then, even if Microsoft manages to fix most of what's seriously wrong with this version of their mobile OS. A fail at launch will take them a long time and a lot more money invested in marketing an PR.

DOA.

Luckily for the market, fanboys calling it DOA doesn't add up to anything. Pretty much like this 'review'. Did you actually write anything yourself or simply paste something from another source then dig in for the ensuing flamewar?

read the article, points taken into consideration, accepts the authors point of view, well illustated examples, thought to myself...mmm... some have said ^ 'it JUST came out', I mean look at the time it took for them to write a startup and expandible mobile OS from scratch, give MS some credit here, they are in another man's territory afterall, after a few months we'll see how well MS reflects on such criticisms/shortcomings, maybe after a year we can see market share, then things should become a little clearer on the future or demise of WM7.

I work in the mobile phone industry, and have to admit, WP7 is everything the consumer has been calling for. It's simple to navigate and has quite a lot of power for a mobile operating system. What do 99% of people use their phone for? Facebook, SMS and calls. All are extremely easy on WP7. I have a HTC Desire, a HTC 7 Trophy and have had a iPhone 3GS. Out of all of the experiences WP7 has been the best out of the box.

Like it has been said, in 2 years time WP7 will be a powerhouse imho.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Indeed. But note that this has Wifi7, HDMI 2.1, BlueTooth 5.4, and 5G Ethernet, so even in the additional features list this bundle blows the Steam Machine away. And, with the money saved, one could improve this dramatically.
    • One of the strangest galaxies in our Universe could help answer some long overdue questions by Sayan Sen Image by Pixabay via Pexels | Not representative An international team of astronomers led by the Department of Astronomy at Tsinghua University has discovered an unusually metal-poor galaxy that may contain signs of first-generation star formation. The galaxy, named Metal-Pristine Galaxy COSMOS Redshift 3 (MPG-CR3), or CR3, was identified using observations from the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), the Very Large Telescope (VLT), and the Subaru Telescope. The findings, published in The Astrophysical Journal Letters, describe CR3 as the most metal-poor galaxy known from the period known as "cosmic noon," around 11.5 billion years ago. Cosmic noon refers to a period when the universe was producing stars at its highest rate and galaxies were growing rapidly. In astronomy, "metals" refers to all elements heavier than helium, including oxygen, carbon, and iron. Because CR3 contains so few of these heavier elements, researchers say it closely resembles what scientists expect the earliest galaxies in the universe may have looked like. The discovery is significant because it could offer clues about Population III (Pop III) stars, the first generation of stars thought to have formed after the Big Bang. These stars are believed to have formed from gas made almost entirely of hydrogen and helium, before heavier elements were created inside stars and spread across the universe through supernova explosions. Hence this is why CR3 has been referred to as a "living fossil." Scientists have long believed that Population III stars existed only in the very early universe. As more generations of stars formed and died, they enriched surrounding gas with heavier elements, making the conditions needed for metal-free star formation increasingly rare. Because of this, researchers expected the formation of such stars to have largely ended after the epoch of reionization, a period when radiation from the first stars and galaxies transformed the neutral hydrogen filling the universe and made it largely transparent to ultraviolet light. CR3 appears to challenge that idea. The galaxy was observed at a redshift of z = 3.193 ± 0.016. Redshift measures how much light from a distant object has been stretched as the universe expands and helps astronomers determine how far back in time they are looking. In this case, the redshift corresponds to roughly 11.5 billion years ago during cosmic noon. Although the universe was already several billion years old by that point, CR3 shows characteristics more commonly associated with much earlier galaxies. Observations revealed exceptionally strong emissions from hydrogen and helium, including Lyα, Hα, and He I λ10830. Lyα, or Lyman-alpha emission, is a specific wavelength of light produced by hydrogen and is widely used to study distant galaxies. Hα emission is another hydrogen signature commonly used to trace active star formation, while He I λ10830 is produced by helium and can indicate the presence of very hot, young stars. The measured equivalent widths of EW₀(Lyα) = 822 ± 101 Å and EW₀(Hα) = 2814 ± 327 Å are among the highest ever observed in star-forming galaxies. Equivalent width is a measure of the strength of an emission line relative to the surrounding light, and such large values are typically associated with intense and very recent star formation. At the same time, researchers found no statistically significant detections of metal emission lines, including [O III] λλ4959, 5007 and C IV λλ1548, 1550. Emission lines act as chemical fingerprints that reveal which elements are present in a galaxy. Oxygen and carbon lines are commonly seen in galaxies that have already undergone significant chemical enrichment. Their absence in CR3 suggests an unusually pristine environment. Using abundance calibration methods developed with JWST observations, the team placed a 2σ upper limit on the galaxy's gas-phase metallicity of 12+log(O/H)<6.52, corresponding to less than 0.7% of the Sun's metallicity (Z < 7 × 10⁻³ Z⊙). Gas-phase metallicity measures the abundance of heavy elements in a galaxy's gas. A 2σ upper limit indicates that the true value is very unlikely to be higher than the quoted threshold. Even when accounting for uncertainties in the calibration methods, the most conservative limit remains 12+log(O/H)<6.95, making CR3 the most metal-poor galaxy identified at cosmic noon. The galaxy also appears to contain very little dust. Researchers measured a Lyα/Hα flux ratio of 13.9 ± 2.5, a result that suggests negligible dust attenuation, meaning very little of the galaxy's light is being absorbed or scattered by cosmic dust. Because dust is usually produced by earlier generations of stars, this finding further supports the idea that CR3 has experienced very little chemical enrichment. Further analysis using spectral energy distribution modelling, a technique that compares observed light with theoretical models, suggests that CR3 contains an extremely young stellar population only around 2 million years old. The modelling, which used Population III stellar templates, also indicates the galaxy has a stellar mass of approximately 6.1 × 10⁵ M⊙. The symbol M⊙ represents one solar mass, or the mass of the Sun. One of the key questions raised by the discovery is how such a chemically primitive galaxy could exist in a universe that had already spent billions of years producing heavier elements. To investigate this, the researchers examined CR3's surroundings. Their analysis suggests the galaxy may lie in a slightly underdense environment, with a density contrast of roughly δ ≈ −0.12. An underdense region contains less matter and fewer galaxies than average. The team suggests that this relative isolation may have helped preserve pockets of pristine gas. Metal-rich material expelled from nearby galaxies may never have reached CR3, while the lower rate of galaxy mergers and interactions could have slowed the mixing of enriched gas into the system. If future observations confirm these findings, CR3 could provide some of the strongest evidence yet that first-generation star formation continued well after the epoch of reionization. Such a result would challenge the conventional view that pristine star formation ended by z ≳ 6 and suggest that small pockets of metal-free gas survived much longer than previously thought. Researchers stress that more observations will be needed to determine the galaxy's true nature. Future spectroscopic studies with higher resolution and better signal quality could help confirm whether CR3 is genuinely hosting Population III star formation. The discovery is also expected to encourage searches for other similar galaxies, which could help astronomers better understand how the first stars formed and how galaxies evolved in the early universe. Source: Tsinghua University, IOPscience This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • "I think in the immediate absence of a partner to apply relief" In the words of Sterling Archer... "Phrasing!"
    • For me, the fundamental problems with these "smartglasses" is that they really don't work well for people with significant prescriptions and massively up the price if you use attached lenses if they have displays, and if they don't, then they're not actually "smart" anything, rather just connecting to your phone and relaying voice to an AI. In a few cases like this, they throw in small cameras to feed video to the AI. All around, these feel like both a solution looking for a problem, and the problems it tries to solve seem more easily solved by different approaches and designs. Oddly, if the rumours are true, Apple may actually have invented something for once and it kind of does this right: put cameras in ear buds and manage the interface to AI exactly as most of us do: tapping on an ear bud and saying "Hey Google" or "Hey Siri." That makes them compatible with almost everyone, can double up as a hearing assist device, an impaired vision assist device, a "smart" device... and answer your phone and play music. That just seems like a better solution all around.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Dedicated
      HidekoYamamoto94 earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • One Month Later
      timbobit earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      nates earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Almohandis earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Rookie
      dorf went up a rank
      Rookie
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      454
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      161
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      107
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      84
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      71
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!