Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 9th Oct 2013 21:47 UTC
Windows

Paul Thurrot has a number of rumours up about Windows Phone 8.1. Two stand out to me.

Where GDR3 is widely expected to support 5- to 6-inch screens, 8.1 will supposedly support 7- to 10-inch screens as well. This obviously infringes on Windows RT/8.x tablets, so it's not clear what the thinking is there.

So, Windows RT will become even more pointless than it already is.

Aping the iPhone navigation model, Microsoft will apparently remove the Back button from the Windows Phone hardware specification with 8.1. The Back button just doesn't make sense, I was told: Users navigate away from an app by pressing the Start button and then open a new app, just like they do on iPhone. And the "back stack" is ill-understood by users: Most don't realize what they're doing when they repeatedly hit the Back button.

This I am not happy with. The back button is my main navigational input in both Android and Windows Phone, and I miss it dearly in iOS.

I'm just hoping on performance improvements, still my biggest issue with Windows Phone. I used my HTC 8X for a few hours today, and I was stunned by just how slow everything is compared to Android 4.3. Of course, application quality is another huge issue, but there's little Microsoft can do to convince developers that their Windows Phone applications are more than just side projects done between serious work on Android and iOS.

Thread beginning with comment 574269
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by stabbyjones
by stabbyjones on Wed 9th Oct 2013 22:36 UTC
stabbyjones
Member since:
2008-04-15

I think making RT more pointless is the intention.

Reply Score: 3

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Windows RT is a great idea, poorly implemented. The right way to do this kind of migration would have been to deploy the Windows RT API years ago, making it attractive to develop for and architecture independent. Then when you have a stable of applications, flip the switch and you have a load of ready applications for your new platform and all the older stuff has already been ported.

Of course an emulator would help too, or Mac Os style fat binaries, but going from a more powerful to a less powerful system makes those more difficult.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by stabbyjones
by jared_wilkes on Thu 10th Oct 2013 00:59 in reply to "RE: Comment by stabbyjones"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

The right way to do this kind of migration would have been to deploy the Windows RT API years ago, making it attractive to develop for and architecture independent.


Yes, time travel can occasionally prove useful when available as an option.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[2]: Comment by stabbyjones
by ze_jerkface on Thu 10th Oct 2013 17:05 in reply to "RE: Comment by stabbyjones"
ze_jerkface Member since:
2012-06-22

The right way to do this kind of migration would have been to deploy the Windows RT API years ago, making it attractive to develop for and architecture independent.


What they should have done is make an architecture independent framework that is also language independent. They could call it .NET or something. They should have also created a Win32 subset to make mobile porting of existing Windows applications easier, maybe call it WinMobile or something. Then they should have hired a monkey to run Windows that ignores all previous work and demands a new API even if he can't explain why. Then they should have deleted technical questions from developers regarding the need for a new API to make the monkey look better.

That's what they should have done. They also could have doused the development division with gasoline and then lit it on fire to get the same result as the monkey plan.

Reply Parent Score: 1

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Nobody would have used it.

I seen devs regularly ignore compiler warning like "THIS IS OBSOLETE AND WILL BE REMOVED NEXT VERSION" or the clocks on the production servers aren't even in right timezone.

You are assuming that people are proactive. Unless they are forced in one direction most devs won't do it.

Reply Parent Score: 2