Windows Mobile 7 - A Peek - MERGED

[Musicman247]

Originally Posted by schettj

Yawn.

Monkey see, monkey do.

Note, for all those nifty UI features (multi-touch, shaking/rotating sensing) you'll need new hardware, since the current hardware can only sense a single touch point, and lacks the accelerometer needed for sensing orientation/shaking/turrets syndrome.

Its nice that Microsoft knows how to copy. It would be really cool if they could learn to innovate. But hey, at least they can copy.

Actually, WM7 is going to use the camera at a low power level to detect motion instead of an accelerometer.

[wberry2]

Looks very clean, I like it alot!

[Aleki]

Originally Posted by boe

That quote scares me - I hope they don't mean the same way that Vista does. There are still some people saying things like Vista runs fine on my home machine - not realizing it can be significantly faster with XP. I'm not saying well designed code can't use more powerful hardware to be even faster - it definitely can - unfortunately MS tends to make code that requires new hardware just to do what the old OS did at the same speed on old hardware.

if we didnt move on, we'd still be complaining about how xp is slower than 98.
it only makes sense, that in order to move to the next tier, some sacrifices will be made.
I built my last years computer around the vista OS because I wanted dx10. the pc runs very fast, though i will admit, because the drivers havent entirely matured yet, there are some games that appear to clip more on occasion than if it were to run on xp. these games are typically older dx9 games (and unfortunately some new ones like NFS PS as well). other than that, the vista UI is much quicker than xp on the same system

[boe]

[QUOTE=Aleki;243532it only makes sense, that in order to move to the next tier, some sacrifices will be made.[/QUOTE]

Actually it doesn't make sense. Cars used to only go 50mph and consume 20 miles to the gallon. Should we ASSUme that to get 100mph you would have to get 10mpg?

NO - you can actually make things more efficient. A computer used to fill an entire warehouse and it wasn't as fast as calculator. Should we ASSUme that it would take two warehouses to make something as fast as a calculator?

By studying what others have accomplished we can make things better. We can improve efficiency - lightbulbs, windturbines, solar cells, batteries etc etc etc.

Those who don't study the past are doomed to be idiots.

I've worked in software development and have seen how some very simple code modifications improved efficiency and speed by 400% - no new hardware required- actually used less bandwidth as well.

[[sammich]]

Originally Posted by boe

Actually it doesn't make sense. Cars used to only go 50mph and consume 20 miles to the gallon. Should we ASSUme that to get 100mph you would have to get 10mpg?

NO - you can actually make things more efficient. A computer used to fill an entire warehouse and it wasn't as fast as calculator. Should we ASSUme that it would take two warehouses to make something as fast as a calculator?

By studying what others have accomplished we can make things better. We can improve efficiency - lightbulbs, windturbines, solar cells, batteries etc etc etc.

Those who don't study the past are doomed to be idiots.

I've worked in software development and have seen how some very simple code modifications improved efficiency and speed by 400% - no new hardware required- actually used less bandwidth as well.

Are you getting at : Assume makes an AS$ out of u and me?


I agree with you completely.

[04elantracvvt]

So, who is going to reproduce the WM7 keyboard? I like it a lot.

[[sammich]]

Originally Posted by 04elantracvvt

So, who is going to reproduce the WM7 keyboard? I like it a lot.

I def agree. It looks so sweet! A true iphone killer!

[Aleki]

Originally Posted by boe

Actually it doesn't make sense. Cars used to only go 50mph and consume 20 miles to the gallon. Should we ASSUme that to get 100mph you would have to get 10mpg?

NO - you can actually make things more efficient. A computer used to fill an entire warehouse and it wasn't as fast as calculator. Should we ASSUme that it would take two warehouses to make something as fast as a calculator?

By studying what others have accomplished we can make things better. We can improve efficiency - lightbulbs, windturbines, solar cells, batteries etc etc etc.

Those who don't study the past are doomed to be idiots.

I've worked in software development and have seen how some very simple code modifications improved efficiency and speed by 400% - no new hardware required- actually used less bandwidth as well.

I guess i chose my words too hastily. what I was reffering it to was dx9 performance in vista as compared to xp. from my understanding, vista is not optimized for dx9, due to a brand new kernel. as how dx7 didnt run as well on a xp machine in comparison to the older OS's

from what i know, vista is following the same trend xp went through back in the day. xp was a more stable OS to 98 (though not 2000) but its hardware requirements made it so a computer with 256MB ram would run it slower than a identical system with 98 or 2000. look at xp now. its gotten more attention over the years as newer pc's became more capable of meeting the OS's requirements.

Same thing is noticed with Vista. it runs pretty sh*tty on my friends computer with 1gb ram. his resolve was loading XP and his computer is perfectly happy with the games he runs. i'm currently running vista64 with 4gb ram and it runs a whole lot better than xp64 for me (i kept it for a month before i made my decision to switch back). less bugs, and surprizingly less issues with crashing programs/games.

I guess this is just a YMMV case depending on the hardware behind the OS

[Torx]

plans might be to introduce "microsoft hardware" to sit under the os...

http://gizmodo.com/381163/windows-mo...osoft-hardware

[Peteman100]

As long as they are taking the time to get it right, I'm alright with it.