It's Official The Iphone Is A Dud!!!

[marcol]

Originally Posted by surur

You can get to at least 12 apps from the start menu. I dont see the point in replacing it with a button that takes you to the Programs folder. I think it saves you time on average.

You put your 7 favourite apps on the start menu, and the 5 Most Recently Used contains the other ones. This way you avoid scrolling if you use the Zip utility a lot.

It's a while since I used WM, but as I recall I ended up assigning some Start menu slots to things that weren't apps - like the Today screen button, Programs folder, Settings folder - and assigning other slots to basic 'housekeeping' apps like File Explorer, Find and Help. Add in a few slots for recent apps and pretty soon you're down to just a handful of slots for main apps that are always there. Whether this is ok for you probably depends on your usage patterns, but I found quite infuriating after the simplicity of the Palm solution: hit the home button and all of your apps are there.

[marcol]

Originally Posted by oalvarez

yes, i think it's much easier to have them on a home screen as well. i don't care for the "push start (hopefully with your finger), select program (hopefully the one you need is on the list). that is one thing i will give Palm, it's home screen, but that's about it!

I seem to recall a comment on Photon (from Ed Hardy at Brighthand possibly) along the lines of 'with Photon you'll be able to everything from one screen'. Sounds more like my cup of tea.

EDIT. Here's the quote from Ed:

With Photon, Microsoft's developers have made great improvements in ease of use. Imagine being able to control every facet of your device from one screen, with one hand. You'll be able to do that with Photon.

http://www.brighthand.com/default.asp?newsID=12490

[mobileman]

Originally Posted by marcol

I'd guess you'd have a home screen and a dedicated hard button to get to it, the way Palm OS, S60 and iPhone do it. That's pretty top of my WM UI wish list.

Exactly....Blackberry, Palm OS, and Symbian users get along just fine without the start menu. Some type of status bar will always be neessary on the top. I would like to see one that goes away when you dont need it.

I dont know how WM treo users can stand the top and bottom bar on a 240x240 device.

[marcol]

Originally Posted by mobileman

I dont know how WM treo users can stand the top and bottom bar on a 240x240 device.

Agreed. They're a ridiculous size. I don't know why Microsoft didn't scale them proportionately.

[surur]

Originally Posted by marcol

It's a while since I used WM, but as I recall I ended up assigning some Start menu slots to things that weren't apps - like the Today screen button, Programs folder, Settings folder - and assigning other slots to basic 'housekeeping' apps like File Explorer, Find and Help. Add in a few slots for recent apps and pretty soon you're down to just a handful of slots for main apps that are always there. Whether this is ok for you probably depends on your usage patterns, but I found quite infuriating after the simplicity of the Palm solution: hit the home button and all of your apps are there.

You remember pretty wrong. There are still 7 user assignable slots AFTER Today, Programs and Settings. Help can be kept or left off as needed. Now you are right that there are some apps that you almost always need, like the file explorer and maybe contacts and calender (though these are hard buttons on many devices) but for the average person 7 apps are already a lot of apps. In addition there are also 5 MRU apps which are different from the apps already preselected. On a 240 screen they are small icons on top of the start menu, and on a 320 screen they are added to the list as full entries.

I think the system works pretty well. I think the biggest problem really is the the MRU gets cleared after a soft reset, leading one to have to go to the programs sub-menu, but if you dont reset a lot the system is pretty efficient.

Surur

[marcol]

Originally Posted by surur

You remember pretty wrong. There are still 7 user assignable slots AFTER Today, Programs and Settings. Help can be kept or left off as needed. Now you are right that there are some apps that you almost always need, like the file explorer and maybe contacts and calender (though these are hard buttons on many devices) but for the average person 7 apps are already a lot of apps. In addition there are also 5 MRU apps which are different from the apps already preselected. On a 240 screen they are small icons on top of the start menu, and on a 320 screen they are added to the list as full entries.

It's true I seem to have forgot some of the precise details, but I certainly remember the frustration! If it works fine for some that's great, all I'm saying is it didn't for me (and as other posts in this thread indicate, I'm certainly not the only one).

[AnteL0pe]

Originally Posted by davidg4781

And you know this how?

People said the same about the iPhone, AppleTV, Mac minis, iPods, etc.

I just know what makes sense. The iPhones advantage is its big bright screen which would be totally eliminated by making the device smaller. Mobile Safari wont work well on a screen thats much smaller than the one its on.

Originally Posted by ttrundle

any real documentation to support your claim?

It was widely reported:


http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/20...n-iphone_x.htm
http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/29/v...e-iphone-deal/
http://news.com.com/Verizon+Wireless...3-6154287.html
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...hone_deal.html

[Freak4Dell]

I agree with surur. It saves time to just go through the programs in the start menu. I know that I use Google Maps, IE, Solitare, Bubble Breaker, and a couple of other things a lot more than I use some of the other programs, so it's a lot easier for me to hit the start button and scroll down to those programs. I only go to the main programs list when I need to use something like Word or something. Honestly I don't like the POS Home screen. I like the Today screen a lot better because it doesn't look so cluttered with all these icons.

[braj]

Originally Posted by AnteL0pe

I just know what makes sense. The iPhones advantage is its big bright screen which would be totally eliminated by making the device smaller. Mobile Safari wont work well on a screen thats much smaller than the one its on.

I'm not saying you're wrong and that an iPhone nano is on the way, but Apple could make a small iPhone sans web browser (but with nice web widgets maybe) that was also a great 2GB iPod.

[taylorh]

Originally Posted by braj

I'm not saying you're wrong and that an iPhone nano is on the way, but Apple could make a small iPhone sans web browser (but with nice web widgets maybe) that was also a great 2GB iPod.

From the rumors I read, the "iPhone Nano" is really just an iPod with a phone added on, no data functionality (no web, email, widgets, etc.) I'm sure it'd have the PDA capability like the iPod alreay has. But imagine an ipod (video I don't know) with only 1 extra feature, a phone.
Just what I thin you're describing. For that matter I don't think it's really a "nano" but I'm sure it'd be smaller since it doesn't need the giant screen.