Lumia 900 on webOS?

**laoh** · 04/04/2012, 08:21 AM

All the tech sites this week are filled with news and reviews of the Lumia 900... it's make or break time for Microsoft/Nokia. Seeing how the hardware is similar to Pre3 (1.4 Snapdragon, 800x480, 512mb), how easy/difficult is it to port Open webOS to 900? Just wondering.

**lavo96** · 04/04/2012, 08:29 PM

Drivers are the key, especially for the cell radio and any other specialised bits and pieces in the hardware. Seeing how the Lumia series is locked down pretty tightly, it might be an issue getting Open webOS to run. If you like the design of the Lumia, a better bet might be getting hold of a N9 instead. It already runs a linux-based OS (Meego), and already has a working port of Android 4.0 for it (although the mic doesn't work yet). The Android port is critical, as this is where the Open webOS ports are getting their drivers from.

Its specs are mostly the same as a Pre2 (and has 1gb of ram rather than 512mb). Plus the N9 is Pentaband, so it will work on pretty much any GSM network worldwide (the Lumias currently are quad band only).

In saying that, I get the feeling that the Galaxy Nexus will be the first one to get some sort of working Open webOS.

**toyotast165** · 04/04/2012, 08:49 PM

patiently awaiting my 900, dual booting webos would make me a happy individual, either way I still have my Pre 3 and Veer

**Vistaus** · 04/05/2012, 06:33 AM

Originally Posted by lavo96

Drivers are the key, especially for the cell radio and any other specialised bits and pieces in the hardware. Seeing how the Lumia series is locked down pretty tightly, it might be an issue getting Open webOS to run. If you like the design of the Lumia, a better bet might be getting hold of a N9 instead. It already runs a linux-based OS (Meego), and already has a working port of Android 4.0 for it (although the mic doesn't work yet). The Android port is critical, as this is where the Open webOS ports are getting their drivers from.

Its specs are mostly the same as a Pre2 (and has 1gb of ram rather than 512mb). Plus the N9 is Pentaband, so it will work on pretty much any GSM network worldwide (the Lumias currently are quad band only).

In saying that, I get the feeling that the Galaxy Nexus will be the first one to get some sort of working Open webOS.

The only thing not true in your post is that the Lumia's are quad-band only. In some countries they are dual-band-only.

**p41m3r** · 04/05/2012, 04:14 PM

With almost identical specs as the Pre3 - including screen res - why in the world would anyone want to port webOS to the 900? Considering that it even has disadvantages in a non-removable battery, no physical keyboard and lower pixel density screen (even though its larger and AMOLED) wouldnt an OS port be a regression of sorts? Why go from a Pre3 to a handicapped Pre3? Are we fienin' that badly?

The effort it would take is not worth it on anything but the top hardware, IMO. I just cant see the benefits because performance would be similar w/ some missing features. Low cost entry level maybe?

**carldc** · 04/05/2012, 04:32 PM

Originally Posted by p41m3r

With almost identical specs as the Pre3 - including screen res - why in the world would anyone want to port webOS to the 900? Considering that it even has disadvantages in a non-removable battery, no physical keyboard and lower pixel density screen (even though its larger and AMOLED) wouldnt an OS port be a regression of sorts? Why go from a Pre3 to a handicapped Pre3? Are we fienin' that badly?

The effort it would take is not worth it on anything but the top hardware, IMO. I just cant see the benefits because performance would be similar w/ some missing features. Low cost entry level maybe?

Makes sense. I think many of us are just looking around for any possibility of new hardware.

**fxspec06** · 04/05/2012, 04:34 PM

Originally Posted by p41m3r

With almost identical specs as the Pre3 - including screen res - why in the world would anyone want to port webOS to the 900? Considering that it even has disadvantages in a non-removable battery, no physical keyboard and lower pixel density screen (even though its larger and AMOLED) wouldnt an OS port be a regression of sorts? Why go from a Pre3 to a handicapped Pre3? Are we fienin' that badly?

The effort it would take is not worth it on anything but the top hardware, IMO. I just cant see the benefits because performance would be similar w/ some missing features. Low cost entry level maybe?

because the hardware on the lumina is absolutely fantastic.

it's one of the best looking phones ever IMO.

anodized aluminum is like. the greatest. ipod mini/nano, case in point.

**Vistaus** · 04/05/2012, 04:38 PM

Originally Posted by p41m3r

With almost identical specs as the Pre3 - including screen res - why in the world would anyone want to port webOS to the 900? Considering that it even has disadvantages in a non-removable battery, no physical keyboard and lower pixel density screen (even though its larger and AMOLED) wouldnt an OS port be a regression of sorts? Why go from a Pre3 to a handicapped Pre3? Are we fienin' that badly?

The effort it would take is not worth it on anything but the top hardware, IMO. I just cant see the benefits because performance would be similar w/ some missing features. Low cost entry level maybe?

Yeah, low-cost entry level indeed. I mean, the specs are almost identical so the porting would be relatively easy. You gotta start somewhere with making a port to a non-webOS-device and the specs of the Lumia 900 fit well for a start.

**Derek Kessler** · 04/05/2012, 05:34 PM

Originally Posted by fxspec06

because the hardware on the lumina is absolutely fantastic.

it's one of the best looking phones ever IMO.

anodized aluminum is like. the greatest. ipod mini/nano, case in point.

Except that the Lumias aren't aluminum. They're polycarbonate.

**Grabber5.0** · 04/05/2012, 06:29 PM

Doh!

**fxspec06** · 04/05/2012, 06:37 PM

Originally Posted by Derek Kessler

Except that the Lumias aren't aluminum. They're polycarbonate.

did not know that.

**p41m3r** · 04/06/2012, 06:37 AM

Originally Posted by fxspec06

because the hardware on the lumina is absolutely fantastic.

it's one of the best looking phones ever IMO.

See the Pre3.

anodized aluminum is like. the greatest. ipod mini/nano, case in point.

The 900's body is basically plastic - like the Pre3.
Looking at it from another angle, maybe an easy(?) port to the Lumia 900 will benefit those who missed out on the Pre3. But at this point, or rather, by Sept 2012, who would want to bother putting a new OS on hardware thats about 2 years dated? Wasnt that part of Palm and HPs dilemma?

**marcedhk** · 04/06/2012, 07:56 AM

Originally Posted by Vistaus

Yeah, low-cost entry level indeed. I mean, the specs are almost identical so the porting would be relatively easy. You gotta start somewhere with making a port to a non-webOS-device and the specs of the Lumia 900 fit well for a start.

Also, I think that should the Lumia 900 fail to make the impression on users that Nokia and MS are betting on, having a webOS port for it might be a good way to get dissatisfied Windows Phone users to give open webOS a try. With all the press coverage the 900 is getting, doing a webOS port for it could be a good strategic move.

**toyotast165** · 04/06/2012, 09:39 AM

I'll donate to that effort.

**Stevesrjr86** · 04/06/2012, 10:59 AM

No doubt. Im getting screwed left and right from being a sprint customer. I had a Pre 3 but sold it and Sprint isn't picking up a new WM phone until fall. The 900 would be a nice phone to have WM/Zune/WebOS

. WebOS with Zune and I'd be set!!

**hagster** · 04/06/2012, 11:39 AM

is this question going to be asked for every new phone that is released?

**marcedhk** · 04/06/2012, 11:58 AM

Originally Posted by hagster

is this question going to be asked for every new phone that is released?

Not every phone, but I think that it should be asked for every major phone using similar technology as existing webOS devices that gets the high degree of press coverage that the Lumia 900 is getting.

**Grabber5.0** · 04/06/2012, 12:23 PM

Until one of these new devices is going to be launched on Sprint, I'm not very interested. I'm not giving up my free service to keep webOS on my primary line.. The price difference makes it not worth it. If it gets ported to one of the Android devices I own, I'll be happy to try it out.

**laoh** · 04/06/2012, 12:53 PM

Originally Posted by p41m3r

With almost identical specs as the Pre3 - including screen res - why in the world would anyone want to port webOS to the 900? Considering that it even has disadvantages in a non-removable battery, no physical keyboard and lower pixel density screen (even though its larger and AMOLED) wouldnt an OS port be a regression of sorts? Why go from a Pre3 to a handicapped Pre3? Are we fienin' that badly?

The effort it would take is not worth it on anything but the top hardware, IMO. I just cant see the benefits because performance would be similar w/ some missing features. Low cost entry level maybe?

Choice man choice. The webOS loyals (that's you, me...) are so starved for new hardware, why not? It'd certainly bring a jolt of energy and excitement to this community. It's b/c it's similar hardware that porting should be a lot easier than say porting over to an iphone or nexus. And the 900 is a nice phone. Even if Windows fails, the phone itself is beautiful. As someone pointed out, porting it to N9 might make more sense since ICS is almost working there (you can youtube the progress videos). I personally like the smaller N9 size over the bigger 900 brethren.

**Vistaus** · 04/06/2012, 01:12 PM

Yeah, N9 > Lumia 900 always. But the problem is is that the N9 is not available everywhere, but Lumia 900 is. So that maybe makes it slightly difficult for some people to get one. Not everyone can do/will do import from another country (not talking about myself, else I wouldn't have imported my TP and Pre 3 lol).

Thread Tools

Display

Posting Permissions