Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 30th Apr 2012 23:49 UTC, submitted by bowkota
Permalink for comment 516481
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/13/13 14:35 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/11/13 17:07 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/10/13 23:13 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/08/13 14:57 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/07/13 11:40 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/04/13 12:45 UTC
Linked by nfeske on 05/31/13 10:12 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/29/13 16:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 17:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-04-23
It's partly the (lack of) apps...
Windows Mobile was quite widely derided, and only tolerated because the alternatives were worse or nonexistent... The interface was extremely clunky to use (trying to put a start bar on a phone..), and the os would crash and need rebooting regularly..
Also although it had apps, actually finding them was a pain in the ass.. There was no central repository, no centralised updating etc. Trying to hunt around websites looking for an installer is bad enough, but doing so on a small screen with the crude browser provided on windows mobile was just terrible.
Windows phone shouldn't be called windows, the association with windows gives people false impressions....
Some people assume that because its "windows", it will have the same problems associated with the desktop version, namely crashing and malware.
Others remember windows mobile, didn't like it so have no reason to think this new version will be any better. Others who remember windows mobile don't like the fact that their existing apps won't run.
The association with windows also makes people think they are the same product, and thus able to run the same apps, cue disappointment when they realise this isn't the case.