Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 30 of 30
  1. #21  
    <merged>
  2. morituri's Avatar
    Posts
    35 Posts
    Global Posts
    37 Global Posts
    #22  
    A better comparison would have been Moto Q against Treo 700w, since they both run on the Windows Mobile platform (although different versions - Smartphone vs Pocket PC Edition). That said, the Moto Q would have been a big hit if it was launched nine or even six months ago. It was over-hyped, and it was late, but at least Motorola recognizes that and adjusted the price accordingly. Wish Palm had a comparable entry-level smartphone at the $200 price already.
    <A HREF="http://www.treotoday.net">Treo Today<A> - news, tips, tricks and more
  3. #23  
    Another POS eliteist. Anything that has a redmond OS gets degraded even if it can do three times as much out of the box.

    Mossberg is simply full of S***
  4. #24  
    David Pogue of NYT on Q:
    Motorola's Q: Lovely Phone; Ugly Software
    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/08/te...y/08pogue.html
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  5. #25  
    Quote Originally Posted by dstrauss
    Not to speak for geatches (although I believe he'd feel the same) you ARE wrong a second time. I might have been shocked that he found something "better" than a Palm, but his support of it would be no better or worse than his support of Palm. Remember, you're talking to a former Treo (Handspring) fanboy here. I've just seen the "light" of the darkside.
    ditto.
    Freedom of some speech in the US, through someone in the UK.
  6. #26  
    All I do all day long is talk smartphones with people. That's my job.

    From what I have learned is that for the majority of Smartphones user's the number one priority is ease of use. 98% of the people that come into my store are shocked to find out that they can even do things like play MP3s, Video, etc. on a Treo. Most use it for PIM and phone. That is all.

    That being said, for awhile there the Q was being talked about like it was the second coming and there was a lot of excitement prior to it's release. Now that it's here the resounding response I am getting is one of disappointment at what could have been.

    If the Q is really as hard to use as all the reviews are saying it is then it's going to have a very short lifespan unless they start giving them away like the Razr's (which also has crappy software).
  7. #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad
    David Pogue of NYT on Q:
    Motorola's Q: Lovely Phone; Ugly Software
    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/08/te...y/08pogue.html
    and taking from the article, right now i might rather push a menu button a couple of times versus the instability and weightiness of a treo. again, i own both the t700w and moto-q and will not "go backwards in time" to own a 700p.
  8. #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by VZWuser
    Another POS eliteist. Anything that has a redmond OS gets degraded even if it can do three times as much out of the box.

    Mossberg is simply full of S***
    Well, Mossberg is a WSJ published author, and I'm a flyspeck in random threads in a fan forum, but VZWuser has a point...
    Remember, the "P" in PDA stands for personal.
    If it works for you, it is "P"erfect.
  9. #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by dstrauss
    Wrong again. This is a "Mossberg" thing, not just a "trash the negative article" bash. Walt's just NEVER seen a Treo that wasn't superior to anything else out there. Granted, the form factor (a bit pudgy) and one-handed operation are great; but like his "unbiased" opinions of the Treo 650, he was the only early user in America that apparently didn't need Volumecare. What a coincidence.
    FWIW: I never needed it either, nor did two co-workers and a friend.

    We are a small elite group. <smile>
    ---
    iPhone / Samsung Epix

    Current playtoys:
    Also: Treo 750 (Test phone) / Sony Ericcson w900 (unlocked for international travel)
  10. #30  
    Quote Originally Posted by VZWuser
    Another POS eliteist. Anything that has a redmond OS gets degraded even if it can do three times as much out of the box.
    I think that has long since been MS's greatest failing. Cramming too much useless junk and / or features into an OS that most people neither want or need resulting in decreased performance and cumbersome usage.

    MS's performance / stability pinnacle was reached with NT4. Lean mean number crunching machine. You didnt want IE4 it was uninstallable.....not no more. Like I want the WM6 "Genuine" utility "phoning home" like Win XP does on every single boot ? Like I want a mediocre firewall ? Like I want a poor system restore utility ? Like I want automatic updates ? Like I want Diskeeper Lite built in when I have a site license for Diskeeper ?

    I'd rather be in a position to have to add 3rd party software for things I do want, muchg of it freebies .... than to have to buy 3rd party software to remove or disable what I want from the list on the right here:

    http://www.litepc.com/xplite.html

    MS could make me a fan if it provided such utility within the OS or better during the install process. Why force me into a 1.6 GB footprint when all that is necessary is 350 MB ? Why force me into the default performance you get with all these things crammed in insead of letting me crunch program data up to 25% faster like you can after these things are ripped out ?

    I'm not much interested in how many things the OS can do as I am in what I can do. If MS takes the fluff out or lets me take the fluff out, I'll be first on line to support it.

    So why doesn't MS do it ? If IE was an add on, as they already learned, people will use other alternatives. If WMP was an add on, people will use other laternatives. So they figure that by cramming this stuff into the OS and preloading portions of it on boot, they can make it appear to load faster. Problem is, when you close it, those parts remain loaded taking resources from othwr programs. Netscape countered with QuickLaunch, as do many other programs, especially competing offcie suites to match the preloads for Office. But we all pay the penalty for such preloads, but only the 3rd party vendors give us the checkbox to disable it.

    Yes, an argument could be made that all this bundling is good for Grandma Moses, Aunt Tillie and all the other novice users who don't know any better. But that levaes anyone with a modicum of knowledge left with an unnecessarily crippled system. It would be like forcing 6500 pound towing capacity, 4WD and big knobby tires on every car produced in America cause some users live in snowy regions.....leaving the rest to pay the mileage penalty.

    MS has done a good job making the OS almost ***** proof. Though when it make a decision that is wrong, good luck trying to convince it otehrwise. But no one has given me reason why they can't provide these choices. They have been repeatedly caught in the lie that removing these items degrades performance. They even faked videos in court to try and prove this point and got caught.....twice. If LitePC can offer these choices, why can't the guys who wrote the code do so ? Choice would make everyone, including me, happy.
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions