Slashdot Mirror
More Windows Phone Update Problems
angry tapir writes "Yet another problem has cropped up preventing some Windows Phone 7 users from getting two software updates, adding a new chapter to the update saga that started in February."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
>I get the M$ hate, but just check it - it's great thing. So much better than Android.
And Mussolini made the trains run on time.
Some of my favourite people are from th US; Vonnegut, Chomsky, Bill Hicks.
How did you type all that in less than a minute?
"If you have time to rigorously test only one component of your software platform, make sure it's the update functionality."
Words to live by.
It's quite obvious that Microsoft is astro-turfing heavily. They like to get a couple of these in early on every story. They're getting a little bit better, but phrases like "What is great about WP7 is its support for developers." are easily identifiable as marketing drone speech.
Most likely they have a bunch of evangelists and/or subcontractors whose only job is to monitor and comment on tech sites; the debacle when Vista marketing got run over by the realitytrain made it quite obvious how expensive it could be to lose control over the narrative.
And with windows phone being a warmed over windows mobile they certainly have their job cut out for them...
Jebsus man the shill factor on that comment went over 9000. You posted a press release style 3 paragraph comment the same time as the article (8:21). You set a preemptive attack on the hardware manufacturers. A strawman against Apple. Then out of nowhere a plug for developers on a developers forum again with the preemptive against 'haters'.
Is obvious shill obvious? Comment below!
A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
It means it's Micro$oft bashing time!
I'm Rocco. I'm the +5 Funny man.
I have a Focus with AT&T. Update came through fine for me last week, and overall I am quite pleased with it.
One of the little publicized problems related to the Focus was its issues with music playback. You could start a playlist, turn the phone "off" (sleep mode), and some random number of songs into the list, there would be stuttering and sometimes crashing on a track change. This was a very annoying problem for someone who had come from a Zune HD and was hoping to migrate all my music over to my new phone and enjoy a seamless experience.
Well, that problem has been fixed, completely. I thought the problem was some hardware issue brought on by Samsung's use of cheap memory, or some such permanent issue, but apparently the engineers at Samsung and Microsoft (and perhaps AT&T) got together and fixed this major issue. So I am extending major kudos to MS and Samsung for taking this problem seriously and fixing it.
Also, the rest of the update is good too: Copy & Paste works great, the Marketplace is improved, and the unit just feels more responsive. While I was once a despairing user of WP7 and the Samsung Focus, I can now fully recommend this product to anyone who wants a powerful yet easy-to-use smartphone.
it means that all those WP7 developers might have the latest, coolest, Silverlight based .NET development tools, but once something doesn't work the way the pointy-clicky development environment says it will, they're pretty much clueless.
It means that they can't get an update to work on a handful of phone models running 1 version of the software. (think what would have happened if they had the hundreds of models that Android has been released on).
It means that dumbing down development only leads to very poor engineering practices. Most of the time you don't notice, but when you need that old-style expertise, you really miss it.
Carriers are still able to block/delay updates in some cases. (and have done so)
Even Apple still has to listen to carriers when it comes to updates in some instances (especially more so with the Verizon iPhone I suspect)
Yes, I get the point, but in my experience this is one of the worst things about the Microsoft stack, by far. I've got no problem sharing infrastructure at the CLR level, but once you go beyond that to try to make applications written for one paradigm fit anywhere the CLR is, you end up with an unholy mess. The "integration" doesn't make things easier, it just forces you into one colossal fuckup instead of a more sensible approach of platform-specific front-ends over a portable base.
Microsoft's approach to web frameworks is an ideal example of this. They tried to make developing a website like developing a desktop application; and web forms, postbacks, and all of that gigantic mountain of failure was the result. ASP.NET development is about as far away from the architectural principles of the web as you can get without dumping the technology altogether and using plugins instead. They tried to abstract away HTTP when it's one of the most fundamental parts of the web, they did a shitty, incomplete job because the architecture of the web and traditional desktop applications are entirely different, and they ended up with a failure that they are now attempting to replace altogether.
So when somebody comes along and says that they are making a game that can be "web-based" because Silverlight's integration lets them do that easily, my immediate reaction is that it's not "an interesting move", it's a continuation of the same terrible fucked up attitude that Microsoft don't show any real signs of shaking. Hence the question - is this actually a web-based game - i.e. does Silverlight's "integration" really deliver, or is it the same old fuckup they always come out with?
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
The three layers are put together, respectively, by XAML, templates and styles, and the very powerful mechanism for data-bindings.
Oh joy.
That sounds like the kind of projects I've had to try to support in the past where everything was configured with a bazillion XML files and the original developers were long gone so you could never figure out which objects were calling which other objects without spending two hours deciphering the linked list of XML lookups.
Desperate to stay competitive against iPhone and Android mobile devices, Microsoft has released a two-pound lump of actual cow faeces that they claim constitutes a phone.
Windows Phone 7, in development for several years, strips the mobile telephone down to its fundamental essence: futility, annoyance, malfunction, inconvenience and a socially unacceptable odour. Confounding analyst expectations, the turd is in fact shined.
US mobile carriers hailed the turd as the perfect physical complement to their world-famous customer service. "This powerful product will promote our growth!" said John Harrobin of Verizon Wireless. "We're marketing them as edible."
"We think we can really work the brand equity," said Steve Ballmer, modelling the optional shoulder-length rubber gloves. "Everyone works with our stuff all day every day. They know who Microsoft is and what we do."
"How about making our customers actually swallow our bullshit physically?" said John Harrobin. "Windows Phone 7 was my idea."
http://rocknerd.co.uk
Well obviously one of them will be along presently to point out that "nobody knows" how well WP7 is doing since release because Microsoft won't tell us. Since I know, I may as well nip that one in the bud: Abysmal is not an exaggeration. Panglozz has been scraping the Facebook user statistics weekly since November for all the major phone platforms, and has assembled that delightful analytical spreadsheet that tells us week-by-week how it's doing relative to other platforms.
Facebook user stats may not be perfect, but it's a huge sample and lines up perfectly with other reports, which seem to be bending over backwards to avoid stating the obvious truth. The phone is not selling. After six months WP7 total facebook users don't add up to two days worth of increase in iPhone and Android platforms. The user base is not there, and ultimately that's what developers care about. They don't care if it's fun to write apps for the phone. They care if there are users to use the apps - and there aren't enough to speak of. The trend is clearly in decline, so not only are the users not there, they're not ever going to be there. Writing Windows Phone apps is not going to be profitable for nearly any developer, and it's not going to make them famous either. Nokia can't save this.
Some of the numbers we've seen for WP7 are totally bogus. Obviously if nearly three times as many people downloaded the software development kit for WP7 as use WP7 for Facebook, something is amiss. Phone software development is not a 3x more common activity than Facebook posting. Somebody is trying to make it look like the thing is more popular than it actually is - perhaps by including the WP7 SDK with some other tools.
Which makes me glad that Panglozz is keeping track of this for us. It may be a little bit OCD, but it's helpful.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
or to put it another way, its Microsoft's version of the internet!
HTML is used to define the UI while codebehind (javascript) defines the logic. HTML includes a style system that allows you to control rendering. etc etc. There's not much difference in concept between them.
However, the binding between UI and objects is horrible and I expect MS will come up with 'XAML binding v2' in the next release of .net and everyone will say how crap the old way was - it reminds me of nasty XML elements being used instead of something simple.The objects are a nuisance too - I can't see why you have to define an object, property pair and then bind that to a UI element. MFC was so much simpler! (ie 1 variable, 1 line of code and you're done, much simpler when you're adding a load of UI elements, but I digress there :) )
I think if you're going to work with a html-style system, you might as well do it in HTML and get the benefits of the standard internet rather than the usual MS-only lockin. They've already realised this themselves, only to reverse the decision when they realised that WP7 used Silverlight (d'oh!). if WP7 doesn't make it, I wonder if Silverlight will go back to being canned in favour of HTML5. Again.