Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1.    #1  
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/07/21/new_phone_os/

    Not WM, not Linux, not Symbian.....and ready by 2007.
  2. #2  
    I would be much more excited if Qualcomm were not involved.
    ---
    iPhone / Samsung Epix

    Current playtoys:
    Also: Treo 750 (Test phone) / Sony Ericcson w900 (unlocked for international travel)
  3. #3  
    I am always impressed how much better a new, not-yet-released OS is than existing OSes. As this article proves, it only takes a year to create a completely new, replacement OS for PDA Phones clearly indicating the incompetence of the existing OS creaters. I admire KDDI's hubris and await their huge success with great anticipation.
  4. #4  
    Their over confidence will be exceeded only by their failure. It's like introducing DOS when operating systems like Linux and OSX and even XP already exist. Their OS will be underdeveloped and buggy. Maybe in x number of years it may become prevalent, but not immediately in a WM5, Palm OS, and Symbian market. Not to mention it will be awhile until developers start releasing applications outside of little "hello world" apps. I wouldn't anticipate a giant swing in the market...


  5.    #5  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kupe
    I am always impressed how much better a new, not-yet-released OS is than existing OSes. As this article proves, it only takes a year to create a completely new, replacement OS for PDA Phones clearly indicating the incompetence of the existing OS creaters. I admire KDDI's hubris and await their huge success with great anticipation.
    Kinda like Vista....take 6 years, drop all the promised features worth having and it's still been psotened 3....or is it 4 times now ? ... not to mention 95% of today's puters can't run it with the major added feature operative.
  6. #6  
    Quote Originally Posted by JackNaylorPE
    Kinda like Vista....
    Kinda. Vista shows just how difficult fielding a new OS can be. Like the same pressure Linus faces every day with Linux. It's not just building the OS - it's making the OS meaningful with user apps, peripheral support, affordable/usable development system, and a market ripe with enthusiastic customers. If OSes were half as easy as the article you posted infers, there'd sure be a lot more choices around, wouldn't there?
  7.    #7  
    I'd be more impressed with Vista if they:

    1. Included the originally promised features like WinFS
    2. Dropped the resource hungry UI.
    3. It imposed no more than a 10% performance hit as compared to their previous OS on the same hardware.....typically it's closer to 20 - 40%.
    4. Didn't add more DRM problems

    Problem is 90+% of the buying public will be overly impressed with 2 and not consider 1, 3 and 4 nor any other considerations.

Posting Permissions