Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 28th Apr 2012 17:19 UTC
Windows I wish more people who work or have worked for large technology companies were as open, honest, and excited as Steve Wozniak still gets over new technology and gadgets. He recently bought a Nokia Lumia 900 - and he's loving it. So much so, in fact, that he claims it's better than Android and iOS in many respects.
Thread beginning with comment 516163
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by Radio
by No it isnt on Sun 29th Apr 2012 09:36 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Radio"
No it isnt
Member since:
2005-11-14

In many ways. Hardware: you can only get 1 or 1.4 GHz (now also 800 MHz) single core Snapdragon CPUs and 480x800 screens. There isn't a single impressively specced WP7 phone out there, and the low-end is severely unimpressive compared to Android phones at the same price. That makes the WP7 segment of the phone market a sea of mediocrity, and rather expensive compared to Android. Not a single WP7 phone with a decent camera in it.

Software: Microsoft followed Apple's lead in which features they would finish later (but didn't leave out MMS, thankfully). Multi-tasking is still so crippled that their own Skype implementation fails in ways it doesn't on any other platform: it can't run in the background. This will be fixed in WP8, but current phones aren't likely to get that update, meaning they're already obsolete.

I'm pretty sure you still have to use Zune software to 'sync' files between phone and computer as well.

And more.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by Radio
by modmans2ndcoming on Sun 29th Apr 2012 12:55 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Radio"
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

WP7 performs extremely well on the hardware it is spec'ed at. What would it need more for? I thought that bloat was bad and that software makers should do better to reduce their hardware needs rather than use the exponential growth in hardware to compensate for bad programming?

As for the multi-tasking point, do you want your battery to be drained like crazy? running certain types of apps concurrently is not too bad, but most apps will suck down the milliamps like a horse that has just galloped 30 miles.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[4]: Comment by Radio
by No it isnt on Sun 29th Apr 2012 13:24 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Radio"
No it isnt Member since:
2005-11-14

Yeah, sure. WP7 scrolls nicely on modest hardware. That doesn't make it fast, though, although it does improve the user experience. All benchmarks show that it's just about as fast as you'd expect for its modest hardware, though -- for Javascript (Sunspider), it's a actually a fair bit worse.

Battery life isn't vastly superior for the WP7 platform, so I don't really see the trade-off here.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Radio
by Jaktar on Mon 30th Apr 2012 21:12 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Radio"
Jaktar Member since:
2011-06-03

I just did a quick search and all the WP7 models that came up were either 5MP or 8MP. This is similar to what my wife has been getting in all of her Android phones.

As for the 'specs' that you keep referring to, Woz already talked about that. Even with the lower specs of the WP7, it is (in Woz's opinion) more fluid than higher spec'd Android and iOS phones.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment by Radio
by No it isnt on Tue 1st May 2012 01:21 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Radio"
No it isnt Member since:
2005-11-14

Megapixels isn't much of an indication of camera quality. The Lumias are among the best WP7 cameras, but they are even worse than the Nokia N9, and I'm not happy with its camera. Samsung's better Android phones are far superior. As are Sony's, and the iPhone 4S (but not the previous ones, which are all remarkably bad).

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by Radio
by Neolander on Tue 1st May 2012 13:55 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Radio"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Megapixels are not an accurate measurements of camera quality. They are just a measurement of image resolution, that is, how large of a print you can make from an image and how much you can tweak it because things start to become really ugly.

Digital pictures have been high-res enough to make decent A4 prints ever since 3 MP cameras have been out. For casual photographers, there is no need for higher-resolution pictures.

Now, stuff that actually matter to phone camera users, such as color fidelity or noise, may actually be harmed by an uncontrolled push for more megapixels. More pixels means smaller photodetectors, so a lower sensitivity and more defects.

Edited 2012-05-01 13:56 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1