How in the world does this company manage to suck so bad? The good news is that they are now irrelevant in the mobile space so we can all escape from their illegal monopolistic behavior, and their bloated, buggy expensive products as we have far better alternatives out there.
Fantastic! 3 consecutive posts in a row from you displaying you have absolutely no level of comprehension for the topic at hand.
How in the world can you manage to suck so bad? The good news is that you are now irrelevant on this blog and we have far better alternatives out there.
Microsoft transitioned quite well though the various stages of DOS and the made a successful leap to Windows where they transitioned smoothly from Windows 3.0 (the first real Windows) to 3.1 to Windows 95 to Windows 98 to Windows XP. In my experience Vista was their first transitional disaster.
DOS 5.0 was a debacle as was Windows ME and Windows 95 desperately needed the Windows 98 "patch".
What a fucking mess. People take Apple's simplicity for granted, but truth be told it takes a shitload of behind the scenes work to make things so seamless.
How is this different from Engadget and Gizmodo? Oh wait, they're actually wrong most of the time, and pile on snarky to absurd levels. DED is deadly spot on 95% of the time. What gets complained about as "bias" is almost always just a correct assessment in the face of windbags blowing hype for Microsoft.
95%? Almost always a correct assessment?
Have you even read anything Dilger has written in the past few weeks?
He said Microsoft copied the Metro UI from Apple and was laughed at in the comments. Then he made assertions that the Metro UI was "web-based" and a "layer" laid over classic Windows 7, again he was smashed in the comments.
Next up was the article saying "Windows 8 tablets won't actually run Windows apps". Again he was put in his place by users that actually know the difference between ARM and x86.
The came his masterpiece, an article written about the future product direction of Office based on a quote he attributed to Ballmer that was actually said by someone else that isn't even a Microsoft employee! To top it off Dilger decided he shouldn't even update the article to fix this fundamental mistake.
This last one, I think, requires a little more thought. Could you imagine if a mainstream political commentator wrote an entire article about the future direction of the Democratic Party based on quotes miss-attributed to Obama that were actually said by McCain?
Could you imagine then if said political commentator decided that, after finding out his mistake, the article didn't need to be updated?
How would you categorize such a person? Arrogant? A tool perhaps? Maybe just plain old stupid?
Anyway, I digress. Now I'm no professor of mathematics but I believe your "95% correct" statement is a bit off. By my count Dilger hasn't hit the mark once in recent times.
However somewhere in this article there could be his first win!
He has shown a complete lack of understanding of how 32-bit and 64-bit applications are generally installed on Windows.
His assertion that a "similar wait and see problems existed for WP7" ignores the real world where the WP7 marketplace has hit 30,000 apps in just 10 months (iPhone took 8 months, and Android 17).
Dilger has also shown he doesn't understand the fundamental concepts of how this WP7 update process works.
If a user is on WP v7 they can't run an app targeted at WP v7.5 and at the moment an app in the app store can only target one OS version (i.e. WP v7 or WP v7.5).
However this all changes at the end of October when a developer will be able to target both OS versions in the app store. It's all transparent to the user they just get told "you can't have these features until you update your OS" which is reasonable and the same as iOS.
The approach between iPhone and WPx is different (i.e. version control in the app package vs version control in the app store) but the end result is the same.
Dilger's logic jump that because WPx works a certain way Windows 8 will as well is also a long shot. At the moment we don't even know if Windows 8 on ARM will have a "classic" desktop and if it does how app deployment will work (i.e. will appx be supported for "classic" apps, will the Windows 8 app store transparently direct the user to the correct download for their system architecture and version etc).
On second thoughts, it looks like Dilger's first win probably won't be in this article!
- If it is an update to an existing app then only 1 entry appears in the app store but you get the version your phone supports (they recomend you specify what features are 7.5 only in the description)
- Update notifications only go to 7.5 users if there's only an update to 7.5
- All version 7 apps will work on 7.5
So by the sounds of things the only potential difference to the user is that they won't be able to see apps that won't work on their phone, which isn't the case with IOS.
All the crap about universal binaries is completely irrelevant as the only way to get an app is through the app store which handles any compatibility issues for your phone.
You're partly correct, and ignored the parts where you're wrong. Here's some info posted in this site from Ms themselves. It too, is only part of it. But get to the bottom. For some reason, you can't update 7.0 version apps. And despite what you say, it doesn't work that wY on iOS. An updated app will still work on an older version of the OS, unlike with WP7.
Have you even read anything Dilger has written in the past few weeks?
He said Microsoft copied the Metro UI from Apple and was laughed at in the comments. Then he made assertions that the Metro UI was "web-based" and a "layer" laid over classic Windows 7, again he was smashed in the comments.
Next up was the article saying "Windows 8 tablets won't actually run Windows apps". Again he was put in his place by users that actually know the difference between ARM and x86.
The came his masterpiece, an article written about the future product direction of Office based on a quote he attributed to Ballmer that was actually said by someone else that isn't even a Microsoft employee! To top it off Dilger decided he shouldn't even update the article to fix this fundamental mistake.
This last one, I think, requires a little more thought. Could you imagine if a mainstream political commentator wrote an entire article about the future direction of the Democratic Party based on quotes miss-attributed to Obama that were actually said by McCain?
Could you imagine then if said political commentator decided that, after finding out his mistake, the article didn't need to be updated?
How would you categorize such a person? Arrogant? A tool perhaps? Maybe just plain old stupid?
Anyway, I digress. Now I'm no professor of mathematics but I believe your "95% correct" statement is a bit off. By my count Dilger hasn't hit the mark once in recent times.
However somewhere in this article there could be his first win!
He has shown a complete lack of understanding of how 32-bit and 64-bit applications are generally installed on Windows.
His assertion that a "similar wait and see problems existed for WP7" ignores the real world where the WP7 marketplace has hit 30,000 apps in just 10 months (iPhone took 8 months, and Android 17).
Dilger has also shown he doesn't understand the fundamental concepts of how this WP7 update process works.
If a user is on WP v7 they can't run an app targeted at WP v7.5 and at the moment an app in the app store can only target one OS version (i.e. WP v7 or WP v7.5).
However this all changes at the end of October when a developer will be able to target both OS versions in the app store. It's all transparent to the user they just get told "you can't have these features until you update your OS" which is reasonable and the same as iOS.
The approach between iPhone and WPx is different (i.e. version control in the app package vs version control in the app store) but the end result is the same.
Dilger's logic jump that because WPx works a certain way Windows 8 will as well is also a long shot. At the moment we don't even know if Windows 8 on ARM will have a "classic" desktop and if it does how app deployment will work (i.e. will appx be supported for "classic" apps, will the Windows 8 app store transparently direct the user to the correct download for their system architecture and version etc).
On second thoughts, it looks like Dilger's first win probably won't be in this article!
look, the issue is simply whether WP 7.0 phone owners can update their phone to 7.5 and use new 7.5 Metro apps and their successors from now on, or not.
if "not," they've bought a dead end P.O.S., and all your pissing and moaning about DED is beside the point. there aren't enuff WP 7.0 phones out there to be worth the trouble for developers to provide backward compatible versions of their future 7.5+ apps for. won't happen.
oh yeah, they'll be supported for years by MS in their early adopter suckerdom obsoleteness, sure they will ...
You're partly correct, and ignored the parts where you're wrong. Here's some info posted in this site from Ms themselves. It too, is only part of it. But get to the bottom. For some reason, you can't update 7.0 version apps. And despite what you say, it doesn't work that wY on iOS. An updated app will still work on an older version of the OS, unlike with WP7.
Microsoft transitioned quite well though the various stages of DOS and the made a successful leap to Windows where they transitioned smoothly from Windows 3.0 (the first real Windows) to 3.1 to Windows 95 to Windows 98 to Windows XP. In my experience Vista was their first transitional disaster.
there aren't enuff WP 7.0 phones out there to be worth the trouble for developers to provide backward compatible versions of their future 7.5+ apps for. won't happen.
If this is the case, why is this Apple site obsessed with a phone that is so lame?
You're partly correct, and ignored the parts where you're wrong. Here's some info posted in this site from Ms themselves. It too, is only part of it. But get to the bottom. For some reason, you can't update 7.0 version apps. And despite what you say, it doesn't work that wY on iOS. An updated app will still work on an older version of the OS, unlike with WP7.
The way I see it it's important to mention access to v7 apps is only limited until the end of October.
After that point devs can target both versions.
Dilger didn't see it that way when he wrote "once a 7.5 version app is published in the App Hub market, developers won't be able to fix bugs or add features to their existing 7.0 version" which of course just means in 5 weeks time we have to chalk that up as another incorrect statement from him.
Look, the issue is simply whether WP 7.0 phone owners can update their phone to 7.5 and use new 7.5 Metro apps and their successors from now on, or not.
Of course they can.
It's going to take longer than iOS though. With WPx the carriers need to give the update the thumbs up. It might take until the end of the year until the update is available to all phones on all carriers.
Of course there will be users that, for whatever reason, don't update their phones. By the end of October devs will be able to support these users with bug fixes and updates.
Of course at some point devs will need to draw a line as it is not feasible to support old versions in perpetuity, especially if the OS update is available for a user and they are choosing not to update.
You're partly correct, and ignored the parts where you're wrong. Here's some info posted in this site from Ms themselves. It too, is only part of it. But get to the bottom. For some reason, you can't update 7.0 version apps. And despite what you say, it doesn't work that wY on iOS. An updated app will still work on an older version of the OS, unlike with WP7.
Also an updated app on IOS is only going to work on an older version of IOS if there is an older version of the app availiable. For instance if I try to install Jamie olivers app on my iPhone 3g I get a message saying my version of IOS needs to be newer. I don't see how this is any different to what Ms are proposing. The tech behind how it works may be different but its still the same end result for users.
Not to mention how many devs out there will actually bother supporting multiple versions of an app. Unless you want to use 7.5 features you will still make 7.0 apps.
Excuse me, but what Apple's competitors are doing is in fact news, especially when those competitors main objective it to take business away, or steal its technology. Apple investors are very interested in what is going on in the marketplace. What planet are you living on?
Mazda, MacRulez, Sprokkets, TimGriff, they're all from the planet "I Hate DED". They have no other opinions other than to rag on Daniel when he writes. They're stuff is boring and irrelevant.
If only they'd stick to the topic and contribute positively. Instead they live to troll. A pathetic existence I'd say.
Sorry guys, not interested in a pissing contest with y'all. Just calling it like I see it. If you don't like it, KMA.
Mazda, MacRulez, Sprokkets, TimGriff, they're all from the planet "I Hate DED". They have no other opinions other than to rag on Daniel when he writes. They're stuff is boring and irrelevant.
If only they'd stick to the topic and contribute positively. Instead they live to troll. A pathetic existence I'd say.
Sorry guys, not interested in a pissing contest with y'all. Just calling it like I see it. If you don't like it, KMA.
I don't hate DED, in fact I quite like his style of writing, particularly when in writes the history behind things. Problem is though whever he writes anything about Microsoft its always wrong, which ruins his credibility. Rather than reading a headline and skim reading another article before turning it into what he's written here, he should actually get the facts right.
I get that he comes from the line of Apple fans that believe for apple to succeed Microsoft must fail. And its fine that he has a bias towards apple, meaning in any comparison apple will always come out on top. But really just get the facts right. I don't see the point in long articles like this when the facts are just wrong. He could write an article half the length and use the spare time for some actual research.
I think this may be a new record for factual errors. Each paragraph seems to be based on something that's just wrong. Even the facts about Apple are worryingly wrong, to such an extent that part way through I thought it was meant to be a spoof ded article.
1. Windows phone developers are just providing a 7.5 update to the app. Yes they release seperate versions for 7 and 7.5 and from October they will be able to update both separately. I don't get why you would want to bundle both versions together. If you have a update to 7.5 why release another 7.0 update that's the same as the last.
2. Users will not be choosing a version, they will just get the one that matchs there phone.
3. All IOS apps do not support every version of IOS
4. OSX apps do not only exist in there app package. They spread out through shared folders just like windows. Unlike windows you don't get uninstallers, you have to manually find the files.
Were you referring to your own post regarding factual errors?
1. Let's simplify the point.
- Winphone: "Separate OS-version based versions of apps"
- iOS: not
The mere fact that we're having any discussion about separate versions, developing multiple versions and user selection/restriction? therein lies the entire point.
See, you've apparently gotten it all sorted out, which then makes it seem simple to you. Personally, I've got better things to do with my time than apply learning curve to smartphone app & OS updates. The underlying point here is, Apple users are supported in that. MS users, not so much.
2. OK, so explain the info-graphic included inline with the article? User information. Version selection. Learning curve. Hmmm... which one is right for me? Your info, or DED's info?
3. If a developer is continuing to support their own product, then their product will run on all the most current versions of iOS (current meaning, 3.x and 4.x). When people say "all", they're referring to "active" versions. We're not talking about legacy 2.x and earlier? I'm pretty sure almost no-one uses those anymore. Dead like Latin. They're irrelevant to the discussion.
4. OSX Apps (meaning the executable binary code) remain in their packages. It's an extremely rare (and probably slightly dangerous case) if they don't.
Apps do indeed add DATA to shared folders, and so on. e.g. Preferences and Application Support data. One example: Final Cut will setup a folder hierarchy in the USER (not SYSTEM) Documents folder. This is not "spread out like Windows"? Look, I used Windows for years? what OSX does ain't NOTHING like that! (Forgive the idiomatics.)
Many OSX Apps do in fact include uninstallers. But when a user uninstalls something, chances are they don't want all of that app's created data to go with it. Manually uninstalling on OSX is extremely easy:
- Delete app.
- Delete data from a few consistent and known locations, if you don't need it.
It doesn't actually take any longer than the "usually incomplete app removal & uninstallation process" of Windows? seriously. Think Spotlight?
We have a lot of control over these things in OSX (and almost none whatsoever in iOS, which I personally consider a good thing). I want my "smartphones/mobile devices" to behave smartly... The less I have to think about and/or manage how those devices work, the better?
MS has never made it "easy". It's part of why I'm probably a permanent convert to OSX/iOS...
I am sorry to burst your apple shaped bubbles but the claim that WP7 users are forced to decide which app version is compatible with their device/os build (7.0 or 7.5) is simply not true. The apps are either "mango compliant" or they aren't, which has no bearing on whether they work with either build.
There are so many more truthful things to pick apart when it comes to WP7, it's app's, and it's marketplace etc etc... etc... etc... & etc again. Stick with the facts.
edit to say: Competition is great, it pushes each company to increasingly become more effective and in the end better for us the consumers. In the end, MS, Apple, and Android users will be benefited by competition. Don't be so sad.
I am new to the apple camp with a recently purchased ipad2. I have may enjoyable experiences with it and the price was competitive with other tablets.
I am also a Windows Phone 7 user. Now I will not start a flame war between iOS and WP7, which one is better, yada yada, because frankly, whats the point? If your iphone does for you what you want it to do, then great! You made a fine investment (which my grandad used to say, something is worth as much as you are willing to pay for it!)
When I upgraded to a smartphone, I looked and Andriod, and iphone. Andriod resembled too much like my younger brother's myspace page, all HTML'd out. The iphone I almost pulled the trigger on, but i was waiting for the sales associate i saw the windows phone 7 devices (particular, the HD7s). after playingwith if for 20 min, it was the right phone for me.
What i did NOT do is rush out and hate everything apple. I did not trash my fellows at work because they didnt have a WP7. i recommended the iphone for my brother (he was on verizon, and the choice was between andriod and iphone, no WP7 devices were available at the time).
But I have been on the receiving end of snooty iphone users. And having read a lot of the articles here on Apple Insider for the past few weeks, I have to say, I see a lot of that elitist attitude on here as well. If you don't use a WP7 (or PC for that matter) then why waste your energy ranting about it? Do you not feel secure in yourself on your purchasing preferences that you have to belittle others?
Not to say it is all like this on this forum. I have found some great tips and tricks for my ipad, and love using it. I don't think I have opened my laptop since I bought it. But seriously, loose the 'tude dudes! Because any jackass with a credit card can purchase something. your phone shouldn't define who you are.
Microsoft has catastrophically mismanaged several transitions recently. XP -> Vista. Windows Mobile 6.5 -> Dead End. Dead End -> WP7.
I thought the article would have contained the most laughable comments here, but no, SockRolid, you take the biscuit.
Your use of catastrophic, is, ironically catastrophically miscalculated. A look at the desktop OS sales of Microsoft and Apple would nullify that argument. Granted, WP7 sales have been poor, but those are currently based on one OS, and single instanced APP installs, so your argument holds no ground there.
the point about a unified binary is that you're not actually single instancing the binary. you're bundling different native binaries together to make a seemless user experience. From a user experience point of view, that's fine, but it's far from the most efficient way to be distributing binaries, especially on a mobile platform where bandwidth is severely restricted, or tied directly to costs to the user. this is perhaps why apple puts user confusing arbitrary limits on app size purchases over the air.. oddly, taking choice away.
many would argue that apple's transition to intel and osx was hardly the smoothest, often times you'd have to swap out to older versions of os to use older apps.
Apple's track record of backwards compatibility should also be called in to doubt.. i can still run a x86 application from the early 1990s on a windows 2008 r2 (x64) if i want to without any need for universal binaries, or emulation, or dropping out to windows 3.11. But then, apple culls support for older products on a whim without any notification or warning to its loyal users, so it's hardly surprising. Good job, apple
> So why, exactly, does Microsoft seem to always get it wrong?
microsoft take a different approach.. it's not wrong, as much as apple's isn't right. There are intelligent ways you can get around the issue of having thin, architecture or platform specific binaries without confusing your end users. Try actually running a windows OS on any platform you wish and tell me how many times you're 'confused' by the concept. a x86 binary will work fine on x64.. it's not a problem.
> I think it's because they're always *reacting* to Apple.
apple have changed the market in a number of ways, but they're not the only force out there doing so.. Microsoft may change their strategies, but so are apple and every successful player out there. iCloud is apple *reacting* to google... albeit, very badly. Lion is apple *reacting* to windows7, albeit very badly. it's the eb and flow of the tech industry. if you dont like it i suggest you're probably not well placed to be passing comment on the internets.
> And when you're reacting to another company, you can't plan ahead.
if you could take your blinkers of for a split second you'd probably be able to see the broader picture. Copying is done by everyone. Apple are as big a culprit as microsoft. the app store is an extension of the windows marketplace that existed years before the iphone came to market.. ideas are taken, and refined. iphone took ideas, some were better, some were worse, but it evolved. wp7 does the same. some ideas work, some dont, but again it's evolving. It does a lot of things right, and those that it doesn't get better.. people are very quick to forget the shambles that was iOS when it first came out, or osx when it first came out.. maybe they'll be as quick to forget about the shambles that is Lion in a few years when its problems have been ironed out.
> And if that new thing is the result of steady, invisible progress that you didn't see or didn't react to soon enough, suddenly you're years behind.
> Sound familiar?
yup. iOS v1.
> Does that sound like what Microsoft did to Windows Mobile 6.x after iPhone was released?
no. feature-wise, wp6.x was ahead of iOS v1, if only because it allowed third party apps, multi tasking, had copy and paste, etc, I could go on, but my point is made. of course, the RDF prevents you from seeing it, and the amount of effort it took to get apple to relent the draconic controls in to a platform that was workable.. it took time, and along the way they got a lot wrong. a lot.
Comments
How in the world does this company manage to suck so bad? The good news is that they are now irrelevant in the mobile space so we can all escape from their illegal monopolistic behavior, and their bloated, buggy expensive products as we have far better alternatives out there.
Fantastic! 3 consecutive posts in a row from you displaying you have absolutely no level of comprehension for the topic at hand.
How in the world can you manage to suck so bad? The good news is that you are now irrelevant on this blog and we have far better alternatives out there.
Microsoft transitioned quite well though the various stages of DOS and the made a successful leap to Windows where they transitioned smoothly from Windows 3.0 (the first real Windows) to 3.1 to Windows 95 to Windows 98 to Windows XP. In my experience Vista was their first transitional disaster.
DOS 5.0 was a debacle as was Windows ME and Windows 95 desperately needed the Windows 98 "patch".
How is this different from Engadget and Gizmodo? Oh wait, they're actually wrong most of the time, and pile on snarky to absurd levels. DED is deadly spot on 95% of the time. What gets complained about as "bias" is almost always just a correct assessment in the face of windbags blowing hype for Microsoft.
95%? Almost always a correct assessment?
Have you even read anything Dilger has written in the past few weeks?
He said Microsoft copied the Metro UI from Apple and was laughed at in the comments. Then he made assertions that the Metro UI was "web-based" and a "layer" laid over classic Windows 7, again he was smashed in the comments.
Next up was the article saying "Windows 8 tablets won't actually run Windows apps". Again he was put in his place by users that actually know the difference between ARM and x86.
The came his masterpiece, an article written about the future product direction of Office based on a quote he attributed to Ballmer that was actually said by someone else that isn't even a Microsoft employee! To top it off Dilger decided he shouldn't even update the article to fix this fundamental mistake.
This last one, I think, requires a little more thought. Could you imagine if a mainstream political commentator wrote an entire article about the future direction of the Democratic Party based on quotes miss-attributed to Obama that were actually said by McCain?
Could you imagine then if said political commentator decided that, after finding out his mistake, the article didn't need to be updated?
How would you categorize such a person? Arrogant? A tool perhaps? Maybe just plain old stupid?
Anyway, I digress. Now I'm no professor of mathematics but I believe your "95% correct" statement is a bit off. By my count Dilger hasn't hit the mark once in recent times.
However somewhere in this article there could be his first win!
He has shown a complete lack of understanding of how 32-bit and 64-bit applications are generally installed on Windows.
His assertion that a "similar wait and see problems existed for WP7" ignores the real world where the WP7 marketplace has hit 30,000 apps in just 10 months (iPhone took 8 months, and Android 17).
Dilger has also shown he doesn't understand the fundamental concepts of how this WP7 update process works.
If a user is on WP v7 they can't run an app targeted at WP v7.5 and at the moment an app in the app store can only target one OS version (i.e. WP v7 or WP v7.5).
However this all changes at the end of October when a developer will be able to target both OS versions in the app store. It's all transparent to the user they just get told "you can't have these features until you update your OS" which is reasonable and the same as iOS.
The approach between iPhone and WPx is different (i.e. version control in the app package vs version control in the app store) but the end result is the same.
Dilger's logic jump that because WPx works a certain way Windows 8 will as well is also a long shot. At the moment we don't even know if Windows 8 on ARM will have a "classic" desktop and if it does how app deployment will work (i.e. will appx be supported for "classic" apps, will the Windows 8 app store transparently direct the user to the correct download for their system architecture and version etc).
On second thoughts, it looks like Dilger's first win probably won't be in this article!
Going by the blog DEDs got this news from.
- 7.5 apps will only be availiable to mango users
- If it is an update to an existing app then only 1 entry appears in the app store but you get the version your phone supports (they recomend you specify what features are 7.5 only in the description)
- Update notifications only go to 7.5 users if there's only an update to 7.5
- All version 7 apps will work on 7.5
So by the sounds of things the only potential difference to the user is that they won't be able to see apps that won't work on their phone, which isn't the case with IOS.
All the crap about universal binaries is completely irrelevant as the only way to get an app is through the app store which handles any compatibility issues for your phone.
You're partly correct, and ignored the parts where you're wrong. Here's some info posted in this site from Ms themselves. It too, is only part of it. But get to the bottom. For some reason, you can't update 7.0 version apps. And despite what you say, it doesn't work that wY on iOS. An updated app will still work on an older version of the OS, unlike with WP7.
http://tamsppc.tamoggemon.com/2011/0...e-app-hub-faq/
95%? Almost always a correct assessment?
Have you even read anything Dilger has written in the past few weeks?
He said Microsoft copied the Metro UI from Apple and was laughed at in the comments. Then he made assertions that the Metro UI was "web-based" and a "layer" laid over classic Windows 7, again he was smashed in the comments.
Next up was the article saying "Windows 8 tablets won't actually run Windows apps". Again he was put in his place by users that actually know the difference between ARM and x86.
The came his masterpiece, an article written about the future product direction of Office based on a quote he attributed to Ballmer that was actually said by someone else that isn't even a Microsoft employee! To top it off Dilger decided he shouldn't even update the article to fix this fundamental mistake.
This last one, I think, requires a little more thought. Could you imagine if a mainstream political commentator wrote an entire article about the future direction of the Democratic Party based on quotes miss-attributed to Obama that were actually said by McCain?
Could you imagine then if said political commentator decided that, after finding out his mistake, the article didn't need to be updated?
How would you categorize such a person? Arrogant? A tool perhaps? Maybe just plain old stupid?
Anyway, I digress. Now I'm no professor of mathematics but I believe your "95% correct" statement is a bit off. By my count Dilger hasn't hit the mark once in recent times.
However somewhere in this article there could be his first win!
He has shown a complete lack of understanding of how 32-bit and 64-bit applications are generally installed on Windows.
His assertion that a "similar wait and see problems existed for WP7" ignores the real world where the WP7 marketplace has hit 30,000 apps in just 10 months (iPhone took 8 months, and Android 17).
Dilger has also shown he doesn't understand the fundamental concepts of how this WP7 update process works.
If a user is on WP v7 they can't run an app targeted at WP v7.5 and at the moment an app in the app store can only target one OS version (i.e. WP v7 or WP v7.5).
However this all changes at the end of October when a developer will be able to target both OS versions in the app store. It's all transparent to the user they just get told "you can't have these features until you update your OS" which is reasonable and the same as iOS.
The approach between iPhone and WPx is different (i.e. version control in the app package vs version control in the app store) but the end result is the same.
Dilger's logic jump that because WPx works a certain way Windows 8 will as well is also a long shot. At the moment we don't even know if Windows 8 on ARM will have a "classic" desktop and if it does how app deployment will work (i.e. will appx be supported for "classic" apps, will the Windows 8 app store transparently direct the user to the correct download for their system architecture and version etc).
On second thoughts, it looks like Dilger's first win probably won't be in this article!
look, the issue is simply whether WP 7.0 phone owners can update their phone to 7.5 and use new 7.5 Metro apps and their successors from now on, or not.
if "not," they've bought a dead end P.O.S., and all your pissing and moaning about DED is beside the point. there aren't enuff WP 7.0 phones out there to be worth the trouble for developers to provide backward compatible versions of their future 7.5+ apps for. won't happen.
oh yeah, they'll be supported for years by MS in their early adopter suckerdom obsoleteness, sure they will ...
hope you bought one.
You're partly correct, and ignored the parts where you're wrong. Here's some info posted in this site from Ms themselves. It too, is only part of it. But get to the bottom. For some reason, you can't update 7.0 version apps. And despite what you say, it doesn't work that wY on iOS. An updated app will still work on an older version of the OS, unlike with WP7.
http://tamsppc.tamoggemon.com/2011/0...e-app-hub-faq/
Source post: http://windowsteamblog.com/windows_p...on-update.aspx
Microsoft transitioned quite well though the various stages of DOS and the made a successful leap to Windows where they transitioned smoothly from Windows 3.0 (the first real Windows) to 3.1 to Windows 95 to Windows 98 to Windows XP. In my experience Vista was their first transitional disaster.
Windows ME? Windows XP 64?
there aren't enuff WP 7.0 phones out there to be worth the trouble for developers to provide backward compatible versions of their future 7.5+ apps for. won't happen.
If this is the case, why is this Apple site obsessed with a phone that is so lame?
If this is the case, why is this Apple site obsessed with a phone that is so lame?
it's fun to pile on MS. it's fun to poke holes in phony BS. it's fun to tease all the people hyping whatever as the next "threat" to iPhone.
and it's pertinent to remind the people now hyping W8 that they better be careful, or they'll get caught in the same trap next time.
You're partly correct, and ignored the parts where you're wrong. Here's some info posted in this site from Ms themselves. It too, is only part of it. But get to the bottom. For some reason, you can't update 7.0 version apps. And despite what you say, it doesn't work that wY on iOS. An updated app will still work on an older version of the OS, unlike with WP7.
http://tamsppc.tamoggemon.com/2011/0...e-app-hub-faq/
The way I see it it's important to mention access to v7 apps is only limited until the end of October.
After that point devs can target both versions.
Dilger didn't see it that way when he wrote "once a 7.5 version app is published in the App Hub market, developers won't be able to fix bugs or add features to their existing 7.0 version" which of course just means in 5 weeks time we have to chalk that up as another incorrect statement from him.
Look, the issue is simply whether WP 7.0 phone owners can update their phone to 7.5 and use new 7.5 Metro apps and their successors from now on, or not.
Of course they can.
It's going to take longer than iOS though. With WPx the carriers need to give the update the thumbs up. It might take until the end of the year until the update is available to all phones on all carriers.
Of course there will be users that, for whatever reason, don't update their phones. By the end of October devs will be able to support these users with bug fixes and updates.
Of course at some point devs will need to draw a line as it is not feasible to support old versions in perpetuity, especially if the OS update is available for a user and they are choosing not to update.
it's fun to poke holes in phony BS.
Then I suggest you focus on the OP. That my friend is like shooting fish in a barrel!
You're partly correct, and ignored the parts where you're wrong. Here's some info posted in this site from Ms themselves. It too, is only part of it. But get to the bottom. For some reason, you can't update 7.0 version apps. And despite what you say, it doesn't work that wY on iOS. An updated app will still work on an older version of the OS, unlike with WP7.
http://tamsppc.tamoggemon.com/2011/0...e-app-hub-faq/
That post is out of date. This whole article stems from them saying you would be able to update the 7.0 version.
http://windowsteamblog.com/windows_p...n-october.aspx
Also an updated app on IOS is only going to work on an older version of IOS if there is an older version of the app availiable. For instance if I try to install Jamie olivers app on my iPhone 3g I get a message saying my version of IOS needs to be newer. I don't see how this is any different to what Ms are proposing. The tech behind how it works may be different but its still the same end result for users.
Not to mention how many devs out there will actually bother supporting multiple versions of an app. Unless you want to use 7.5 features you will still make 7.0 apps.
Excuse me, but what Apple's competitors are doing is in fact news, especially when those competitors main objective it to take business away, or steal its technology. Apple investors are very interested in what is going on in the marketplace. What planet are you living on?
Mazda, MacRulez, Sprokkets, TimGriff, they're all from the planet "I Hate DED". They have no other opinions other than to rag on Daniel when he writes. They're stuff is boring and irrelevant.
If only they'd stick to the topic and contribute positively. Instead they live to troll. A pathetic existence I'd say.
Sorry guys, not interested in a pissing contest with y'all. Just calling it like I see it. If you don't like it, KMA.
Mazda, MacRulez, Sprokkets, TimGriff, they're all from the planet "I Hate DED". They have no other opinions other than to rag on Daniel when he writes. They're stuff is boring and irrelevant.
If only they'd stick to the topic and contribute positively. Instead they live to troll. A pathetic existence I'd say.
Sorry guys, not interested in a pissing contest with y'all. Just calling it like I see it. If you don't like it, KMA.
I don't hate DED, in fact I quite like his style of writing, particularly when in writes the history behind things. Problem is though whever he writes anything about Microsoft its always wrong, which ruins his credibility. Rather than reading a headline and skim reading another article before turning it into what he's written here, he should actually get the facts right.
I get that he comes from the line of Apple fans that believe for apple to succeed Microsoft must fail. And its fine that he has a bias towards apple, meaning in any comparison apple will always come out on top. But really just get the facts right. I don't see the point in long articles like this when the facts are just wrong. He could write an article half the length and use the spare time for some actual research.
I think this may be a new record for factual errors. Each paragraph seems to be based on something that's just wrong. Even the facts about Apple are worryingly wrong, to such an extent that part way through I thought it was meant to be a spoof ded article.
1. Windows phone developers are just providing a 7.5 update to the app. Yes they release seperate versions for 7 and 7.5 and from October they will be able to update both separately. I don't get why you would want to bundle both versions together. If you have a update to 7.5 why release another 7.0 update that's the same as the last.
2. Users will not be choosing a version, they will just get the one that matchs there phone.
3. All IOS apps do not support every version of IOS
4. OSX apps do not only exist in there app package. They spread out through shared folders just like windows. Unlike windows you don't get uninstallers, you have to manually find the files.
Were you referring to your own post regarding factual errors?
1. Let's simplify the point.
- Winphone: "Separate OS-version based versions of apps"
- iOS: not
The mere fact that we're having any discussion about separate versions, developing multiple versions and user selection/restriction? therein lies the entire point.
See, you've apparently gotten it all sorted out, which then makes it seem simple to you. Personally, I've got better things to do with my time than apply learning curve to smartphone app & OS updates. The underlying point here is, Apple users are supported in that. MS users, not so much.
2. OK, so explain the info-graphic included inline with the article? User information. Version selection. Learning curve. Hmmm... which one is right for me? Your info, or DED's info?
3. If a developer is continuing to support their own product, then their product will run on all the most current versions of iOS (current meaning, 3.x and 4.x). When people say "all", they're referring to "active" versions. We're not talking about legacy 2.x and earlier? I'm pretty sure almost no-one uses those anymore. Dead like Latin. They're irrelevant to the discussion.
4. OSX Apps (meaning the executable binary code) remain in their packages. It's an extremely rare (and probably slightly dangerous case) if they don't.
Apps do indeed add DATA to shared folders, and so on. e.g. Preferences and Application Support data. One example: Final Cut will setup a folder hierarchy in the USER (not SYSTEM) Documents folder. This is not "spread out like Windows"? Look, I used Windows for years? what OSX does ain't NOTHING like that! (Forgive the idiomatics.)
Many OSX Apps do in fact include uninstallers. But when a user uninstalls something, chances are they don't want all of that app's created data to go with it. Manually uninstalling on OSX is extremely easy:
- Delete app.
- Delete data from a few consistent and known locations, if you don't need it.
It doesn't actually take any longer than the "usually incomplete app removal & uninstallation process" of Windows? seriously. Think Spotlight?
We have a lot of control over these things in OSX (and almost none whatsoever in iOS, which I personally consider a good thing). I want my "smartphones/mobile devices" to behave smartly... The less I have to think about and/or manage how those devices work, the better?
MS has never made it "easy". It's part of why I'm probably a permanent convert to OSX/iOS...
There are so many more truthful things to pick apart when it comes to WP7, it's app's, and it's marketplace etc etc... etc... etc... & etc again. Stick with the facts.
edit to say: Competition is great, it pushes each company to increasingly become more effective and in the end better for us the consumers. In the end, MS, Apple, and Android users will be benefited by competition. Don't be so sad.
I am new to the apple camp with a recently purchased ipad2. I have may enjoyable experiences with it and the price was competitive with other tablets.
I am also a Windows Phone 7 user. Now I will not start a flame war between iOS and WP7, which one is better, yada yada, because frankly, whats the point? If your iphone does for you what you want it to do, then great! You made a fine investment (which my grandad used to say, something is worth as much as you are willing to pay for it!)
When I upgraded to a smartphone, I looked and Andriod, and iphone. Andriod resembled too much like my younger brother's myspace page, all HTML'd out. The iphone I almost pulled the trigger on, but i was waiting for the sales associate i saw the windows phone 7 devices (particular, the HD7s). after playingwith if for 20 min, it was the right phone for me.
What i did NOT do is rush out and hate everything apple. I did not trash my fellows at work because they didnt have a WP7. i recommended the iphone for my brother (he was on verizon, and the choice was between andriod and iphone, no WP7 devices were available at the time).
But I have been on the receiving end of snooty iphone users. And having read a lot of the articles here on Apple Insider for the past few weeks, I have to say, I see a lot of that elitist attitude on here as well. If you don't use a WP7 (or PC for that matter) then why waste your energy ranting about it? Do you not feel secure in yourself on your purchasing preferences that you have to belittle others?
Not to say it is all like this on this forum. I have found some great tips and tricks for my ipad, and love using it. I don't think I have opened my laptop since I bought it. But seriously, loose the 'tude dudes! Because any jackass with a credit card can purchase something. your phone shouldn't define who you are.
Microsoft has catastrophically mismanaged several transitions recently. XP -> Vista. Windows Mobile 6.5 -> Dead End. Dead End -> WP7.
I thought the article would have contained the most laughable comments here, but no, SockRolid, you take the biscuit.
Your use of catastrophic, is, ironically catastrophically miscalculated. A look at the desktop OS sales of Microsoft and Apple would nullify that argument. Granted, WP7 sales have been poor, but those are currently based on one OS, and single instanced APP installs, so your argument holds no ground there.
the point about a unified binary is that you're not actually single instancing the binary. you're bundling different native binaries together to make a seemless user experience. From a user experience point of view, that's fine, but it's far from the most efficient way to be distributing binaries, especially on a mobile platform where bandwidth is severely restricted, or tied directly to costs to the user. this is perhaps why apple puts user confusing arbitrary limits on app size purchases over the air.. oddly, taking choice away.
many would argue that apple's transition to intel and osx was hardly the smoothest, often times you'd have to swap out to older versions of os to use older apps.
Apple's track record of backwards compatibility should also be called in to doubt.. i can still run a x86 application from the early 1990s on a windows 2008 r2 (x64) if i want to without any need for universal binaries, or emulation, or dropping out to windows 3.11. But then, apple culls support for older products on a whim without any notification or warning to its loyal users, so it's hardly surprising. Good job, apple
> So why, exactly, does Microsoft seem to always get it wrong?
microsoft take a different approach.. it's not wrong, as much as apple's isn't right. There are intelligent ways you can get around the issue of having thin, architecture or platform specific binaries without confusing your end users. Try actually running a windows OS on any platform you wish and tell me how many times you're 'confused' by the concept. a x86 binary will work fine on x64.. it's not a problem.
> I think it's because they're always *reacting* to Apple.
apple have changed the market in a number of ways, but they're not the only force out there doing so.. Microsoft may change their strategies, but so are apple and every successful player out there. iCloud is apple *reacting* to google... albeit, very badly. Lion is apple *reacting* to windows7, albeit very badly. it's the eb and flow of the tech industry. if you dont like it i suggest you're probably not well placed to be passing comment on the internets.
> And when you're reacting to another company, you can't plan ahead.
if you could take your blinkers of for a split second you'd probably be able to see the broader picture. Copying is done by everyone. Apple are as big a culprit as microsoft. the app store is an extension of the windows marketplace that existed years before the iphone came to market.. ideas are taken, and refined. iphone took ideas, some were better, some were worse, but it evolved. wp7 does the same. some ideas work, some dont, but again it's evolving. It does a lot of things right, and those that it doesn't get better.. people are very quick to forget the shambles that was iOS when it first came out, or osx when it first came out.. maybe they'll be as quick to forget about the shambles that is Lion in a few years when its problems have been ironed out.
> And if that new thing is the result of steady, invisible progress that you didn't see or didn't react to soon enough, suddenly you're years behind.
> Sound familiar?
yup. iOS v1.
> Does that sound like what Microsoft did to Windows Mobile 6.x after iPhone was released?
no. feature-wise, wp6.x was ahead of iOS v1, if only because it allowed third party apps, multi tasking, had copy and paste, etc, I could go on, but my point is made. of course, the RDF prevents you from seeing it, and the amount of effort it took to get apple to relent the draconic controls in to a platform that was workable.. it took time, and along the way they got a lot wrong. a lot.