Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Cellphones Communications Handhelds Microsoft Hardware

LG's Windows Phone 7 Series Early Prototype 103

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the early-always-tastes-better dept.
suraj.sun writes to tell us that Engadget got an early look at the new Windows Phone 7 series early prototype (and included a video). "The QWERTY slider is the first branded Windows Phone 7 Series device the world's ever seen, and while the hardware and software are both obviously early, we can tell you a few things about it: it's just a hair thicker than an iPhone or Nexus One, there are dedicated hardware camera, volume, and power buttons in addition to the back, home, and search buttons dictated by Windows Phone 7 Series, and we noticed a five megapixel camera with a flash on the back, along with a headphone jack. Can't say much apart from that right now, since things are so early and everything is subject to change, but things are certainly moving along."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

LG's Windows Phone 7 Series Early Prototype

Comments Filter:
  • This is News? (Score:1, Redundant)

    by whisper_jeff (680366)

    Can't say much apart from that right now, since things are so early and everything is subject to change...

    Barely a thing is known yet this makes it to the front page of Slashdot? I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, yet somehow I am...

  • Another miss (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    I've not seen a lot of the Win 7 Mobile UI but what I have seen suggests that Microsoft can't quite bring themselves to abandon desktop Windows style design elements in favor of things more appropriate to the small screen of a handheld.

    This [lukew.com] sums it up well. If you put those same screenshots next to an Android phone you'd have the same result. Win 7 Mobile wastes a lot of space and spends a lot of time looking whizzy, without really accomplishing anything. Animating every action was forgivable 10 years ago i

    • Re:Another miss (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Hijacked Public (999535) on Monday March 01, 2010 @10:54AM (#31316048)

      That link is being gone over [edwardtufte.com] on Edward Tufte's site, although I wouldn't expect Tufte to have any love for anything Microsoft.

      I played with a prototype windows 7 phone about a month ago and they are using the paradigm of making the desktop larger than the screen almost everywhere and it is incredibly annoying.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by r_naked (150044)

        When I first saw the new WinMo 7 interface, I thought that the UI was chopping off parts of words because it wasn't finished, or wasn't quite designed for the phone they were demonstrating it on. Now that I know that is how they WANT it to look, this has fail written all over it. It is ugly and cluttered, and given that this was *supposedly* a ground up re-write, I don't know WHAT they were thinking.

        Bottom line, this sucks. There are 4 (maybe 5) major "smartphone" players:

        Apple - iPhone - I have one, and I

        • Re:Another miss (Score:5, Insightful)

          by sznupi (719324) on Monday March 01, 2010 @01:27PM (#31318586) Homepage

          Aren't you forgetting about Symbian?...

          You know, that smarthpone OS which almost has more marketshare than all the platforms you mentioned, combined...

          • The thing about Symbian is that it really isn't a "global" player despite having a large marketshare. No matter what you think about the US it is a primary source of SW development as well as hype and branding. Nokia for some unknown reason has essentially abandoned the American market starting about 5 years ago. You can find them here and there but back in the day everybody owned a Nokia. Today it just simply isn't on the radar of Americans or more importantly the significant American software and services
            • by sznupi (719324) on Monday March 01, 2010 @02:28PM (#31319474) Homepage

              First - yeah, US market is important but...don't overestimate its importance in relation to the rest of the world. It's quite atypical market. Look how well Nokia is doing in the rest of the world anyway, with them being the only major cellphone manufacturer that's very profitable (others are either out of the market, struggling financially, or mobile phones are far from vast majority of their business; RIM might be an exception - though do they sell phones or corporate/carrier service?)

              Secondly, it's not much of a mystery why Nokia isn't really present in the US - several years ago (when mobiles really started becoming more than voice + sms) it refused excessive castration of its phones, which was demanded by US cellphone carriers...and there you go.

              • >> several years ago (when mobiles really started becoming more than voice + sms)
                >> it refused excessive castration of its phones,

                Er, actually, it was more because none of Nokia's phones could do EDGE, none of Nokia's phones could do 3G UMTS on AT&T's 850/1900 uplink/downlink frequencies, and T-Mobile had no 3G UMTS network at all until about 18 months ago. As a result, Nokia's higher-end phones were useless GPRS paperweights in America. Ditto, for Canada (Rogers uses the same frequencies as

                • by sznupi (719324)

                  What are you talking about? The first EDGE phone in the world, Nokia 6200 (launched 2002), had also AT&T as its launch carrier. The first 3G phone in the world, Nokia 6650, launched at the beginning of 2003...with version for US market/frequencies, 6651, soon after.

                  • > What are you talking about? The first EDGE phone in the world, Nokia 6200
                    > (launched 2002), had also AT&T as its launch carrier.

                    OK, let me rephrase that. None of their high-end PDA phones, starting sometime around 2005, seemed to support EDGE or AT&T's UMTS frequencies. I was told point blank by a group of Nokia evangelists right around the time their first internet tablet came out that none of their flagship phones available at that point could do anything besides GPRS in America. Some casu

            • by mdwh2 (535323)

              *yawn* Pro-Apple tactic #434 - redefine "market share" to mean something else.

              Not to mention that you confuse yourself. If you want to say that it's only the US market that matters (obviously I'm irrelevant, here in the UK), that's all very well, but you start off by saying they're not a global player. Which is it? Globally, Nokia are the market leader, by far. Globally, Apple are behind Nokia, LG, Samsung, Motorola, and RIM.

              But even if we're talking only of the US, let's see some citations on market share

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by rsborg (111459)

            Aren't you forgetting about Symbian?... You know, that smarthpone OS which almost has more marketshare than all the platforms you mentioned, combined...

            The GP poster is clearly from the USA as he refers to AT&T being his preferred provider. According to Wikipedia, Symbian smartphone marketshare in the USA lags others

            Symbian has the largest share in most markets worldwide, but lags behind other companies in the relatively small but highly visible North American market.

            Furthermore, it's not actually cl

          • Aren't you forgetting about Symbian?...

            You know, that smarthpone OS which almost has more marketshare than all the platforms you mentioned, combined...

            Only just.

            But I would argue that Symbian can hardly be included in the list since it's not really a part of the smartphone application race in any significant way.

            The difference between Symbian and all other competitors on the list is, most people buy a phone that happens to have Symbian running it, whereas for Android or the iPhone or Pre or WM, people buy a

            • by sznupi (719324)

              But that's a distinction not that dissimilar to the ones between OSes in PC world - you have small minority choosing Apple, small minority choosing Linux (and similar alternatives) but "unwashed masses" get a PC that happens to have Windows running it; manufacturer of which is quite successfull if you ask me...

              Oh, and in case of Nokia they actually play very nice; I don't really see in which area they haven't earned their success (nvm great service they are doing for humanity)

              Do you seriously think that Nok

              • But that's a distinction not that dissimilar to the ones between OSes in PC world - you have small minority choosing Apple, small minority choosing Linux (and similar alternatives) but "unwashed masses" get a PC that happens to have Windows running it; manufacturer of which is quite successfull if you ask me...

                They are successful because people write tons of software for Windows.

                But here you have a totally different situation. Almost no-one is writing Symbian applications, even though as you say it's the m

                • by sznupi (719324)

                  Though IMHO saying "almost no-one is writing Symbian applications" is a bit of a stretch. Ovi store has quite a bit of them; Symbian also nicely runs tons of j2me apps. Plus...I think you overestimate the importance of vast, vast number of apps. How many Windows apps are actually widely used? How come Debian isn't the most succesfull OS with its repositories? How many apps on Apple AppStore (or generally) are junk? There's some point of balance there, with the pure number of apps not being the only indicati

                • by mdwh2 (535323)

                  Almost no-one is writing Symbian applications

                  Citation please? (And please, not one that only looks at "app" stores - the point is that we aren't restricted to an "app" store.) Plenty of apps for my phone. I can also use any Java application too - if you see more things specifically written for the Iphone, it's only because they've had to accommodate the awkward player that can't handle 15 year old technologies.

            • by mdwh2 (535323)

              But I would argue that Symbian can hardly be included in the list since it's not really a part of the smartphone application race in any significant way.

              Not a smartphone? What definition of "smartphone" are you using that includes phones like the Iphones (can't even multitask; first versions couldn't even copy and paste for heaven's sake - did they fix that yet?), but doesn't include Symbian?

              The difference between Symbian and all other competitors on the list is, most people buy a phone that happens to have

        • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward

          You Americans can say you don't like it, but dismissing Symbian as a "major smartphone player" when it holds almost half of the global market is ridiculous. Putting WebOS and its tiny representation before Symbian borders on stupid.

          Perhaps you just forgot about it, since Nokia won't bend over, open their ass and say "please" for the US carriers like the others do.

          • by r_naked (150044)

            Two things:

            1 - Why would I care about "global" market share when I live in the US? I only care about phones that I can buy and use here. Is that hard to comprehend? I have no idea why Nokia doesn't have more of a market presence in the US, but again, it doesn't matter to me.

            2 - Nokia puts Symbian OS on ALL their phones. So while it may be a "smartphone OS", installing it on barebones basic hardware doesn't make it a "smartphone"...

            • by sznupi (719324)

              1 - uhmm, but you can buy them just fine - they just weren't promoted at all by carriers, that's all. Not only some US carriers have them; with Nokia you can easily truly own your phone and pick a contract/prepaid that's really a good deal (ok, that last thing might a problem in the US too...)

              2 - that is completelly untrue. Symbian does NOT constitute most of Nokia sales. S30 and S40 (the most popular mobile phone platform on the planet) are NOT Symbian; the latter is only a small portion of Nokia sales.
              Per

              • > 1 - uhmm, but you can buy them just fine - they just weren't promoted at all by carriers, that's all.

                They weren't "promoted" by AT&T and/or T-Mobile because they couldn't do data faster than 19.2kbps on either company's network, and no sane individual is going to spend several hundred dollars for an unsubsidized "smartphone" that takes 30 seconds just to handshake with a SMTP server or negotiate a https CONNECT.

                Maybe they abandoned America, maybe they were kicked out. To Nokia, abandoning a tiny, f

            • by Ilgaz (86384)

              Any device which you can install general purpose software (including deep, kernel level things on Symbian) and multi task is a smart phone.

              If a future Symbian^3 or ^4 device does come with sub $100 price tag can do whatever my Nokia E71 can do, pity for me, I hurried. It doesn't change the fact that an army (100M+ devices/year) of devices, coming with Qt 4.x+ is on the way and if you are a developer who dismisses this _fact_ just because it isn't mentioned on your trendy web 2.0 sites, you are really missin

              • by sznupi (719324)

                I don't think you have much reason to, uhm...pity yourself ;)

                Symbian^3 devices (in affordable price range) are generally a thing for end of 2010, at the earliest.

        • Microsoft - WinMo series - It wasn't until WinMo 6.5 that they *finally* got an OK touch only interface. I don't want to have to use a pointer to use my phone. Unfortunately there is still a lot of software that needs that pointer -- so MS came out with WinMo 7, with no backwards compatibility (that has been seen yet -- and I don't think there will be any), but the interface is aweful even for alphaware.

          Why do you think the WP7 interface is awful? Love to hear some specifics... I'm sure I'll be considered biased since I work for MS, but I'm a huge fan of the new UI. And that's from someone who bought an iPhone day one... and haven't found anything better (including Android) until the Windows Phone announce. Personally, I think the user-centric model MS has built, surfacing useful information from apps at a higher, hub level, is a nice step forward. Thoughts? Love to hear some specifics on why you dislike

        • by sznupi (719324)

          PS. PS. Also, you left out Samsung bada OS. Yes, it's unreleased as of yet - but launching in two months, and with the stated goal of shipping on "significant portion" of Samsung mobile phones; I guess they want to ship it on everything except from the most basic devices.

          It will be big (I suspect quite quickly second only to Symbian) for one simple reason: Samsung is second only to Nokia in marketshare, and significantly ahead of the rest.

        • by SpryGuy (206254)

          I think you need to differentiate between "awful" and just "different".

          The "cutting off" of UI elements is a cue that there is more stuff to the right, making it far more intuitive and discoverable to swipe over to see the extra content.

          It's actually not a bad design at all.

          And the animations themselves give cues to what is going on and "where" you are going in the UI, as well as cues about how to get back (though a dedicated back button really helps out here).

          It remains to be seen how well it works in real

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by radish (98371)

          On the other hand, I think it's the best looking Smartphone UI out there, bar none. I hate Android (and hate even more the fragmentation and inconsistency brought by mods like Blur), Blackberry is yawn inducing and the iPhone is starting to look a little long in the tooth. The Pre is nice but I'll be honest - I've never used it in person so can't really comment. From sheer visual appeal though - WinMo7 wins for me.

          I've played with a Zune HD (which WinMo7 is based on) and it's great - really nice to use and

      • by jo42 (227475)

        Actually, when you think about it, having the display be a window into a larger desktop is perfect for the current attention deficit generation. It will keep their attention occupied, scrolling all over the place looking at and for stuff. When they forget something they saw half a second ago, they will scroll back around some more to find it. I can see this type of UI keeping them occupied for tens of minutes at a time.

      • by sznupi (719324)

        More generally, this UI might end up not much different from current "good" WinMob experience. Specifically - those implementations which put nice, polished homescreen with basic apps on top.

        Yes, the basic experience might be nice. But 3rd party apps don't fit. With WinMob7 the situation might be better, after all every implementation will, supposedly, have the same UI paradigm/homescreen...but I don't really see how MS can enforce (with that kind of UI) solid, consistant, easy to follow / forced upon UI gu

    • Win 7 Mobile wastes a lot of space and spends a lot of time looking whizzy...

      Fair enough, but maybe LG have finally learned a lesson from users' complaints: namely that the only difference between LG's own software and a bucket of shit is the bucket. If they can find anybody else's software to use, it's highly likely to be an improvement.

      I have had many LG appliances, including phones, TV and a HDD PVR. The hardware is in some cases quite good (with a big exception that is off-topic in this discussion)
    • by gtall (79522)

      Why was the parent modded down? Simply not agreeing with the sentiments is not a good reason.

      • I think the contractor/gray PR company who is involved in spamming all web 2.0 sites also have idling slashdot mod accounts and modding down all the messages comes with the price.

        MS can't admit their huge mistakes like Nokia did and they think, polishing the clunky UI, bribing IT departments and abusing sites will "fix" the situation.

        Unfortunately, it may work.

  • Looks like MS nailed it.
    • I would say if it is half as popular as the Zune, Microsoft has nothing to worry about.
      • by Akido37 (1473009) on Monday March 01, 2010 @11:20AM (#31316494)

        I would say if it is half as popular as the Zune, Microsoft has nothing to worry about.

        If it's half as popular as Zune, Google/Apple/Nokia/Palm/etc have nothing to worry about.

      • I would say if it is half as popular as the Zune, Microsoft has nothing to worry about.

        If it's TWICE as popular as the Zune, Microsoft still has nothing to worry about. :-)
        • by talz13 (884474)

          I would say if it is half as popular as the Zune, Microsoft has nothing to worry about. If it's TWICE as popular as the Zune, Microsoft still has nothing to worry about. :-)

          If it's TWICE as popular as the Zune, Google/Apple/Nokia/Palm/etc still have nothing to worry about. :-)

  • by Twigmon (1095941) on Monday March 01, 2010 @10:55AM (#31316072) Homepage

    Well... I would like that phone with android installed on it ;)

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Android hit the nail on the head when it comes to device usability.

      The programming structure that allows applications to easily call parts of other applications has delivered what I see as unprecedented inter-connectivity between mobile applications, which has increased mobile productivity for me on a personal level.

      Example: I was out of town and looking for a Bank of America ATM. BoA has a mobile application for online banking that allows me to do all the usual things that I can do from my computer (see

      • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

        I'd think that Microsoft is playing the "pay attention to me again! see, another release!" card, in hopes that they won't become obsolete in that computing space. Windows Mobile has been a crapfest for virtually every release, taking a GUI which really shouldn't work on a small device and shoehorning it in.

        Forget openness, forget any sort of accountability. They're going to show you just enough to get you to theoretically throw down your heathen iPhones and Android devices and come home to Papa Ballmer, and

      • by toadlife (301863)

        I don't think Microsoft's problem has ever been about the power of the underlying platform. What you just described has been easy to do (from a programming standpoint) in Windows Mobile for ages and there are several apps on my phone that are very location aware.

        Setting aside them not being able to bring a touch friendly interface to WinMo fast enough, Microsoft's problem is that they assumed that their favorable position in the business phone market would magically carry over into the personal smart phone

    • xda-developers.com seem to have many guys porting Android to many WM devices.

      I'm watching the Android on HTC Touch Diamond 2 (Topaz, Fuse to US folks) keenly.
  • Worst. Name. Ever. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Eponymous Coward (6097) on Monday March 01, 2010 @11:06AM (#31316278)

    Who names this stuff? Windows Phone 7 Series? Microsoft has virtually unlimited resources. How can their marketing be so awful?

    • by NEDHead (1651195) on Monday March 01, 2010 @11:11AM (#31316388)
      Let us consider: Microsoft is normally ridiculed for inferior products, yet frequently has dominant market share. So how is Microsoft marketing a failure?
      • Monopoly means... (Score:2, Insightful)

        by SuperKendall (25149)

        Let us consider: Microsoft is normally ridiculed for inferior products, yet frequently has dominant market share. So how is Microsoft marketing a failure?

        Because Monopoly means you don't necessarily have to market (or market well), most customers are forced to come to you, like it or not.

        For instance, there are still a fair number of people that MUST have Windows Mobile phones because that is what the corporation will buy for them.

        • Re:Monopoly means... (Score:4, Informative)

          by copponex (13876) on Monday March 01, 2010 @01:44PM (#31318848) Homepage

          For instance, there are still a fair number of people that MUST have Windows Mobile phones because that is what the corporation will buy for them.

          Do you know of any other vendor that offers enterprise grade solutions for the same price point?

          As time goes on, I'm sure we'll see a few corporations on Linux / Android, or OS X Server / iPhone, but for now, the best option for ROI is Windows and its derivatives.

          • Do you know of any other vendor that offers enterprise grade solutions for the same price point?

            That is basically just repeating what I said. "There are still a fair number of people that MUST have Windows Mobile phones because that is what the corporation will buy for them."

            I didn't say it was good or bad. It is just fact.

            And that is why poor marketing doesn't matter.

            However, I'm not sure that particular fact will help Windows 7 - it seems like they are keeping 6.5 around (rebranded "Classic") for busine

            • by copponex (13876)

              I didn't say it was good or bad. It is just fact.

              Earlier you said

              Monopoly means you don't necessarily have to market (or market well) most customers are forced to come to you, like it or not.

              Microsoft maintains their monopoly through a certain amount of shady business practices, but also because there is no enterprise competition to speak of. If Apple dropped their prices, or if the Linux community could settle on a cohesive set of basic standards, Microsoft could possibly lose their monopoly. Just because Microsoft is the only place you can buy Windows and Office doesn't make them a monopoly. If they somehow worked out a deal to outlaw other software, then I think you would hav

              • by dave562 (969951)

                If Apple dropped their prices

                Apple needs more than a price drop to compete in enterprise space. They need a lot of developers and a good number of years to come up with worthwhile application stack that speaks to the business market. I doubt they will ever go there. As Apple fans are fond of saying, "You aren't Apple's target market." Apple's target market seems to be consumers with extra cash to spend, and consumers who want a reliable, consumer based computing experience. They don't care about ERP o

          • by WiiVault (1039946)
            I would argue that RIM offers a better deal to many organizations as opposed to MS. In my experience Blackberry deployment has almost always been smoother than WinMo.
            • In my experience Blackberry deployment has almost always been smoother than WinMo.

              Yeah, until the next worldwide Blackberry email outage.

        • Unless IT guys get bribed by MS or they are plain stupid/ignorant, there are very very good solutions to access Exhange/MS servers on Blackberry and Symbian. In fact, Symbian ones come free in general.

          Of course, having met a "Windows server" admin lately, I am not sure how will that idiot who recently forced an entire office to XP Pro from XP Home because he misunderstood a KB article will look for such solutions.

          RIM enjoys a similar ignorance too, it is not widely known that most Symbian phones will happil

          • by dave562 (969951)

            Unless IT guys get bribed by MS or they are plain stupid/ignorant, there are very very good solutions to access Exhange/MS servers on Blackberry and Symbian. In fact, Symbian ones come free in general.

            Don't forget that Apple finally got on the bandwagon and licensing Active Sync from Microsoft. Now the iPhone seamlessly syncs with Exchange mail, calendar and tasks. If I weren't such a purist and attached to the keyboard on my Blackberry, I'd consider an iPhone.

        • I dunno - I actually like MS-Windows, it has a nice interface, its fast and its stable. I've had a lot of Macs (through work no less) I never found the UI to be that efficient unless you knew all the gestures and tricks. On face value its a lot more cumbersome to me (again - this is a PERSONAL preference!).

          I swore up and down though I'd never buy another Windows Mobile phone - for the exact same reasons. Horrible UI, slow, and why should I have to reboot my phone every day? I actually like my Symbian phone

      • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

        Let us consider: Microsoft is normally ridiculed for inferior products, yet frequently has dominant market share. So how is Microsoft marketing a failure?

        Poorly prosecuted monopolistic practices?

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        This may be changing...

        Its not a popular point of view here on slashdot, but I had a zune and thought it was far superior to the ipod. It was cheaper, had an FM tuner, and the software was IMHO easier to use than itunes, did all the same video things as an ipod, and was easy to use as an external hd. I never really understood why there was hate for the Zune on /. aside from the typical MS animosity.

        But the Zune never achieved the Ipod's popularity, even though my friends that had them loved them. I stopped

        • I never really understood why there was hate for the Zune on /. aside from the typical MS animosity.

          Blame it on the fact that Zune's early users were all forced to repurchase their music when the DRM scheme was upgraded for the new models. This wasn't just a blunder. After all, companies make blunders all the time. What makes this issue much bigger than a blunder is that Zune never corrected the issue, even in the face of thousands really pissed off customers!

          Plus your comparison of Zune vs. iPod is misleading. If someone doesn't want to pay the hefty premium of an iPod, they'll just compare Zune against

          • I bought Creative. I really hate Creative but they have done several things right with their MP3 devices: no DRM standard, you can access it like a regular filesystem, so it works on Linux or any other OS as well. The bundled headphones did not suck, etc.
      • by tokul (682258)

        Let us consider: Microsoft is normally ridiculed for inferior products, yet frequently has dominant market share. So how is Microsoft marketing a failure?

        Microsoft got its first dominant market share because there were no low cost usable alternatives. Their contractor lost monopoly on hardware, but microsoft software monopoly remained and they benefited from expanding hardware market. After that company abused in dominant market position to push products into other markets, to fight competitors and to spo

      • Because every time they actually attempt to MARKET, they end up confusing end users and techies alike. Do you not remember their seinfeld ads? Or the windows 7 launch party ads?

        MS may be good about getting customers, but that is IN SPITE of their marketing attempts.
    • Windows "Phone" shows where MS would be today if they didn't have an illegal monopoly on PC Desktop. They think people love and trust to Windows brand and would use it if they have been given a real chance to choose.

      On the other hand, Symbian, iPhone OS (post 2.x) and various Linux based platforms and even ARM (CPU) itself enjoys the popularity which would occur on x86 Desktop if MS/Intel/IBM gang didn't exist. It is like the 80s home computer wars and it is fun to watch how amazing things come from competi

      • "Windows "Phone" shows where MS would be today if they didn't have an illegal monopoly on PC Desktop."

        So you're saying without an illegal monopoly on the PC Desktop, their Desktop GUI would suck as much as their mobile one? I don't get the connection.

        • Monopoly with low quality of code. On a device which requires high quality and efficient code, they fail since there is Symbian, Maemo Apple etc. there.

          On Desktop, inefficient code and security issues can be fixed with high speed cpu and security software. On devices, device needs reboot middle of a phone call or has comical battery life. The king on current smart phones is Apple, there is also RIM (Java, imagine!), Nokia (Symbian was developed for mobile) and Google giant. MS enjoys (!) the fact that they

      • by toadlife (301863)

        They think people love and trust to Windows brand and would use it if they have been given a real chance to choose.

        Every non-technical person I know that owns an Iphone or Android based phone had no idea that there were phones that ran Windows until I showed them my Touch Pro 2.

  • by linuxci (3530) on Monday March 01, 2010 @11:25AM (#31316554)

    I can't stand the WP7S UI, it just seems irritating. It's designed so nothing fits on the screen, even the date displayed on the pic in the article is truncated. To access anything you'll need to move horizontal and vertical.

    It reminds me back in the days of 14" monitors. I remember that in Linux I could set up X to use a much higher resolution than the monitor supported and then you'd use the mouse to pan around the screen. I hated that then, I hate it now.

    Make things fit on the screen where possible, scroll only when necessary.

    Microsoft is just trying to look fancy with no thought on usability. You'd get tired of all this very quickly.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by wh1pp3t (1286918)
      The difference between the implementation of X and WP7 is the Microsoft version has hard points in which the 'desktop' is viewed, whereas X was free floating. IMO, MS should move horizontally OR vertically (not both) since it would be easy to get lost.
      If done properly, I don't see an issue. However, as you stated -- the chances of it being a nuisance are very high if not done properly.
    • The horizontal/vertical scrolling action is an extension of the media center interface (and supposedly Zune, though I've never seen one) and it's not a bad way to go if they feel they need some eye candy (and that seems to be the only way to lure the masses). The one dimensional version of OS nav was recently a topic here on /. as the "next big thing" in finger-manipulated computer work spaces. The fact that they can't fit February on the screen is pretty stupid, but the overall interface makes sense when

      • by radish (98371)

        What do you mean by "standalone" GPS? There are already a number of 3rd party GPS apps on iPhone (Navigon, TomTom, etc).

        As for the UI, I happen to really like it. And for something which I spend a large portion of my day using, yes, "eye candy" is important.

    • It's clear you don't understand how the UI works.

      I own a Zune HD, which works from the same concept. Allow me to explain it to you.

      The idea is similar to how a desktop works stretched across multiple monitors.
      Yes, the background spans them all. However, any individual application only uses 1 monitor's worth of space.
      You go side-to-side to access another slice of screen, which is easily done by tapping your finger once on that side of the screen, where you see the next "monitor's worth" as a mini-screen of

  • In looking at those screenshots, that phone looks a LOT thicker than an iPhone. Even with the case I have on mine, it looks thicker.

    • Um, it has a hard keyboard with it - it's going to be thicker than a screen-only device.

      If you want to be bothered by something, you should complain that the keyboard is out but the screen has not rotated to landscape.

  • Sorry but... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by rinoid (451982) on Monday March 01, 2010 @02:11PM (#31319222)

    Linking to Engadget is barely allowed at /.

    Linking to Engadget stories with lame ass videos that don't even show the product is punishable by ruler slaps!

  • Looks a lot like a cheaper version of the G1 physically and the actual OS looks like it borrows ideas from the iPhone and Android. If MS is always going to rely on copying other people then they'll always be one step behind. Oh well, I'm sure they'll tie in with Windows in some way to gain an advantage.
    • by Vegeta99 (219501)

      But Windows Mobile was out on cellular devices LONG before iPhoneOS or Android ever was...

      So Microsoft is copying Apple and Google who are copying Microsoft. I'm not even a programmer and I can make infinite loops!

  • I can definitely also see Microsoft coming out with their own "smartphone".

    Called it. [slashdot.org]

"The pyramid is opening!" "Which one?" "The one with the ever-widening hole in it!" -- The Firesign Theatre

Working...