Slashdot Mirror

I thought this was the first windows phone: http://www.dcviews.com/press/Orange_SPV.htm

Now I learn it was all just a dream... it wasn't a REAL windows phone at all... or maybe Elop is too young and inexperienced to remember recent history... ah well..

It's semantics and marketing...

Windows Phone 7 is Microsoft's newest mobile OS so Stephen Elop's statement "the first real Windows Phone" is talking within the context of Windows Phone 7. Microsoft are simply de-emphasising the numeric part of the operating system name leading to "Windows Phone" (similiar to Apple with "iOS 5" and "iOS").

The Orange SPV was powered by an earlier Microsoft operating system called Smartphone 2002 (although with later rebranding/newer releases its probably more commonly recognized as "Windows Mobile for Smartphone" aka non touch screen devices). Indeed the SPV was the earliest smartphone developed with Microsoft and a "windows" based OS, however it wasn't a "Windows Phone" - atleast in the context of what Stephen Elop meant.

This is just like people referring to Windows Phone 7 devices as "Windows Mobile" devices etc, when Windows Mobile technically refers to a previous OS/platform.

Also Stephen didn't suggest it was the first windows cellphone ever, only that it was the first "real" one which showed the true potential/experience of the platform (but since when hasn't an OEM said that about their newly announced device?)

So... Stephen Elop calls it 'the first real Windows Phone'

I thought this was the first windows phone: http://www.dcviews.com/press/Orange_SPV.htm

Orange was a Microsoft Gold Partner, and I wrote the Orange custom home screen software complete with easter-egg while working for Orange in Leeds.

Now I learn it was all just a dream... it wasn't a REAL windows phone at all... or maybe Elop is too young and inexperienced to remember recent history... ah well..

to put MP3s on your NetMD, you had to let Sony's cruddy software convert all of the files from MP3->some sony format (i.e. guaranteed quality loss)

That's interesting, but he is comparing a large format camera (4x5) with a 35mm digital...the age of the camera doesn't really matter as much in film photography as long as it's a decent quality camera. What he should really be comparing this to is one of these(39MP) or one of these(45MP)...as these are medium/large format digital cameras...

Companies involved in various aspects of this market include Archos, Nikon, Sony, SanDisk and Epson, as well as a whole slew of smaller names like I/OMagic, Sima, Transcend, Vosonic, Innoplus, Digi Magic and Delkin.

Right now, today, the new iPod Photo isn't destroying their market share. But as of today, we're at the point where we can buy an iPod and a little gizmo (like the SanDisk one) we stick flash cards into for display on a TV... or just buy an iPod Photo. With that Belkin attachment, any iPod can be your place to dump photos in the field. And other than adding card slots, most of the other features other products have that the iPod Photo doesn't offer can be added in firmware updates. One at a time. Step by step. Until another market segment is overrun by white-earbudded iPod people. :)

But by the time that happens, the iPod Photo will probably have video playback capability, since again, that's totally just a matter of adding the capabilities through a firmware upgrade. Sure, it's not a top priority for Apple right now, but they've got the hardware now, and just have to code the functionality in the firmware.

In a year or two, will we all be saying "iPod uber alles" with regard to things other than music? Dunno. But if it happens, I won't be surprised.

August 02, 2004, TOKYO, JAPAN - Using its proprietary optical technology, CASIO COMPUTER CO., LTD. has developed the world's first lens using transparent ceramics. This breakthrough will make it possible to create zoom lenses for cameras with greatly reduced profiles.

There are soom cool pictures of the lenses as well as some text and graphics that explain what is going on pretty well.

In a nutshell, the transparent ceramic lens can be thinner and lighter than a glass lens because it has a higher refractice index (bends light more). It's also stronger, they say. Nifty, just what you need to make a smaller camera. Of course, if you put that tiny lens in front of lousy electronics, you get a lousy camera. As another post mentioned, the review said there was a lot of noise, which sounds like a lousy camera to me.

http://www.dcviews.com/press/Panasonic-DMC-FZ10.ht m

But doing some digging around I find that you are correct. It does indeed do F2.8 throughout it's complete range. Wonder how they have managed that ?

I have to ask though, do you actually need F2.8 anyway. The two reasons for wanting an aperture that wide are for getting a very shallow depth of field and for taking shots in low light.

If you want that shallow a depth of field then you probably want it for portraits or the like. In which case going the Canon route you could pick up a cheap EF 50 F/1.8 for $150 or so, which would give you an even tighter depth of field.

If you want it for low light use then you need to remember that the Canons have very usable 800 and 1600 ASA modes (they have less noise than most of the pro-sumers at 100 ASA). This means that you easily gain an extra 3 stops, so an F/4.5 on the Canons will equal the Panasonic's F/2.8

You could therefore get very close to the range you want with the EF 24-85 F/3.5-4.5 plus EF 75-300 IS F/4-5.6. This would get you close to the wide end (38mm Canon vs. 35mm Panasonic) and give you 480mm (at 35mm equiv) image stablized at the long end. You could get both of these good lenses for under $850.

If you really need the extra 3mm on the wide end then you could go with the 18-55mm kit lense and the EF 75-300 IS. That would leave you with a gap between 55mm and 75mm, but that is hardly the end of the world and you could fill it later.

I have both the 24-85 and the 75-300 IS and they are good lenses. The 75-300 is a bit plastic, but you have to consider that it is under $500 the other 300mm IS lense from Canon EF 300 F/4.0 L IS is $1500 or so, which makes the 75-300 a bit of a bargin.

After reading some comments here about the fact that it doesn't support display nor Linux... I did a lil' research...

The ZDNet article states "...When connected to a television or PC, the device can also become a DVD player for watching movies. "... Now that is not entirely false... As you'll see in a copy of the press release (scroll down the page to find it) here... You'll see that you can play DVD movies via the PC's USB.. "Hi-Speed USB Interface (USB 2.0/1.1)"! at 8x speed... only... as for the TV it's not supported; as stated "Output: Mini analog stereo (headphone jack) only"... So that is one fact down... Prolly in the future they may provide the means to do it via USB>DECODER>TV... :)

Now for the other problem... support for Linux... the press release states "System requirements: Pentium® II 233Mhz or faster PC with 32Mb RAM, HDD with 1.2Mb sustained transfer rate or faster, Direct-X supported sound card, Installed USB 1.1 or 2.0 port, Power Macintosh G3, Power Mac G4, iMac DV or iBook® computer running Mac OS 9.2.2 or higher OR Windows 98/2000/Me/XP operating system..." So the answer for the time being is no... no Linux support... but it's less than a month away... and who knows... if everyone rants on their head they may support it ;)... However, I think the Linux community will find way ....