[french toast]

I was thinking more...retro!..

[Ike Turner]

Originally Posted by Mize

Actually palm had micro/SD support, file system access and universal device search on the Treo in, what...2003/2004?

Back to the future with WP8!

And Windows Mobile / PocketPC back in 2001....

[Mize]

Originally Posted by Ike Turner

And Windows Mobile / PocketPC back in 2001....

Touche - as did my Kyocera 6035 in 2001.

So let's face it, 98.3% of all "smartphone" advances in the last few years are eye-candy and ease of use, often at the expense of true features and functionality.

Hell the iPhone still doesn't have IMAP IDLE that my PalmOS devices had with Chattermail.

[zed]

just imagine how fast wp will be with dual kraits?

well considering that in the above benchmark a midrange
1ghz android is faster than the top of the line 1.4ghz WP7.5 phone, I wouldn't be so certain.

The splash screen doesn't have to be at the device's native resolution and doesn't have to be a bitmap though, and as tongue_of_colicab says you're actually dealing with pretty small files for splash screens. Even if you did do some logic to check the device's native resolution then select a splash screen based on that you'd be looking at about a single frame worth of variance in load times, if that. And if a developer's splash screen *is* appreciably slowing down loading of their app then they're doing it wrong and should slap themself across the face as a wakeup call.

I take it you dont develop apps, eg heres part of the IOS guidelines
If your splash screen is not the native screensize your app will be rejected

WRT normal in-app textures (esp true on 2d stuff which most phone apps are)
Simple rule -> the higher the res, the bigger the texture size needs to be to look good
man this aint rocketscience, ok its obvious you havent developed stuff before but even for a layperson surely this is obvious?

[joker454]

Originally Posted by zed

I take it you dont develop apps, eg heres part of the IOS guidelines
If your splash screen is not the native screensize your app will be rejected

WRT normal in-app textures (esp true on 2d stuff which most phone apps are)
Simple rule -> the higher the res, the bigger the texture size needs to be to look good
man this aint rocketscience, ok its obvious you havent developed stuff before but even for a layperson surely this is obvious?

Splash screens don't do anything though, they are just a static image displayed. It's not like every pixel of a splash screen is being shaded with a 300 instruction pixel shader and displayed on a 500k vertex rotating mesh with 300 light sources. A 2d image is loaded and displayed, that's it, as was shown in those benchmark tests in that video that was previously linked. They have no effect on load time unless you want to argue that a 1280x720 jpg loads significantly slower than a 800x480 jpg, in which case I'd argue that if a phone took that long to load a few extra k then it's probably an unusable phone anyways.

[function]

Originally Posted by zed

I take it you dont develop apps, eg heres part of the IOS guidelines
If your splash screen is not the native screensize your app will be rejected

WRT normal in-app textures (esp true on 2d stuff which most phone apps are)
Simple rule -> the higher the res, the bigger the texture size needs to be to look good
man this aint rocketscience, ok its obvious you havent developed stuff before but even for a layperson surely this is obvious?

Urgh, appealing to your own authority and selective quoting/ignoring the most salient points followed by a poorly disguised troll.

And once again you try and duck around your frankly stupid claims that the resolution of the splash screen is causing the apps to load so fast on Windows Phone 7.

No one was talking about iOS, and that's pretty damn clear. The comparison in the video was Android vs WP7. I'm not an Android developer but afaik you don't get rejected for having a splash screen that isn't the native resolution. But if I'm wrong I hope someone corrects me. And if I am, exactly nothing will have changed because it still won't be having a significant impact on load times.

Secondly, depending on what your app does you may want to use the extra resolution to display more content, or you may be working with mostly text, or you may load your textures at some time other than app startup. A higher resolution display does not mean that app startup times will necessarily be lengthened due to loading larger images. You ignored the part where I said this, and instead reply "without quote" in some kind of durr hurr u tink higher resolution can't show bettor pics carnival of dickery.

[french toast]

@Function

Originally Posted by zed

well considering that in the above benchmark a midrange
1ghz android is faster than the top of the line 1.4ghz WP7.5 phone, I wouldn't be so certain.

Come on zed...that's sunspider scores...that browser optimisations, something that Microsoft had publicly stated they have not optimised for in wp7. Wp8 and internet explorer 10 will change that by about 5x.

A better idea of the efficiency of wp would be to look how silky smooth a Nokia 610 runs on a single cortex a5 @ 800mhz, 256mb of single channel ram, and a puny adreno 200 gpu...extrapolate that up to dual krait at 1.5ghz, dual channel memory, 1gb ram, and a adreno 225/320 and it's not hard to see the massive performance gains to look forward to.

[elroy]

Surprised this hasn't been posted yet. Say hello to the Samsung Ativ S:

http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/29/32...indows-phone-8

http://windowsteamblog.com/windows_p...this-year.aspx

[Ike Turner]

And WP8 supposedly launching on Oct 29th:
http://www.mobiletechworld.com/2012/...-october-29th/
http://www.zdnet.com/mark-your-micro...ed-7000003450/

[wishiknew]

Nokia can't even announce it first.

[french toast]

Yea a surprising move, that is the first proper high end wp device, it actually carries s slightly bigger battery (2300mah) than the galaxy s3.

Really interested to see what Nokia has been cooking up, they said this was the phone that would show the rest potential.
Now wp8 has fee sure parity with android, we will see just how well it sells.

[Squilliam]

That is a really really cool device. I guess Samsung were hedging their bets against Apple litigation?

[dragonelite]

Originally Posted by elroy

Surprised this hasn't been posted yet. Say hello to the Samsung Ativ S:

http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/29/32...indows-phone-8

http://windowsteamblog.com/windows_p...this-year.aspx

That is one sexy phone...
Love the brushed aluminum.

[wco81]

It's Vita spelled backwards.

Taunt?

[Helmore]

Originally Posted by zed

well considering that in the above benchmark a midrange
1ghz android is faster than the top of the line 1.4ghz WP7.5 phone, I wouldn't be so certain.

Sunspider only benchmarks part of what it takes to load internet pages fast, but in case you're curious, Microsoft has said that Windows Phone 8 on their test hardware gets a Sunspider score of roughly 1200 ms. Here's a linky: http://www.favbrowser.com/windows-ph...r-10-detailed/

[Squilliam]

Originally Posted by wco81

It's Vita spelled backwards.

Taunt?

Yeah quite probably. I think Samsung and Sony are rivals in a lot of things and you have that Korea vs Japan thing as well.

[wco81]

Samsung and Nokia have previewed their WP8 devices but no launch dates or prices.

Could be the software, including the SDK, just isn't ready:

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/...ndows-phone-8/


So apparently, the belief about Windows 8 apps. working on all W8 and WP8 devices has yet to be borne out?

[joker454]

Originally Posted by wco81

Samsung and Nokia have previewed their WP8 devices but no launch dates or prices.

Could be the software, including the SDK, just isn't ready:

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/...ndows-phone-8/


So apparently, the belief about Windows 8 apps. working on all W8 and WP8 devices has yet to be borne out?

I think the sdk isn't out until the 15th...until then have to sit and wait.