Our First Controversial Post!

[Jason Dunn]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.smartphonethoughts.com/index.php?topic_id=3947' target='_blank'>http://www.smartphonethoughts.com/index.php?topic_id=3947</a><br /><br /></div>Well it wouldn't be a Thoughts site if we didn't have a little controversy now and then, right? ;-) <br /><br />Yesterday I did up a post <a href="http://www.smartphonethoughts.com/index.php?topic_id=3947">about mobile phones crashing</a>, and I ended with a thought that generated quite a bit of controversy. I was surprised to see that post making the rounds on several sites - I didn't realize anyone knew we were here yet. :wink: Here's a shout out to the people who flamed me on Geek.com: wassup! :lol:<br /><br />The real point of my post was not to compare Windows Mobile and Symbian, but rather to say that ALL phones, regardless of operating system, are less stable now than when they were dumb voice terminals. If it's a computer, it will crash. It's a myth that anyone has designed the ultimate crash-proof OS. Macs don't crash? Sure they do. Linux doesn't crash? Sure it does. Symbian doesn't crash? Sure it does. Windows doesn't crash? Sure it does. If you can't admit that, then you're living on the wrong planet. The real test of an OS is how well it deals with problems when they come up, and how often it fails. It's not a matter of <u><b>if</b></u> it will fail, it's a matter of <u><b>when</b></u>. I wasn't trying to paint a picture of Symbian being an unstable OS when I saw the Nokia crash, I was simply pointing out that it <i>did</i> crash, and it crashed like a computer - which was the point of the post.<br /><br />Now onto the more thorny issue of Microsoft vs. the Symbian consortium (and here's the part where I'll get flamed). Yes, Symbian as an OS is more mature than Microsoft's mobile offerings (especially on the Smartphone). The Smartphone 2002 OS is a 1st generation product (I don't understand why some people are calling it a 2nd generation product), and it shows it's ugly head now and them. Does Microsoft have a huge, long road ahead of them? Yes, absolutely. Does the Smartphone need improvement? Yes, absolutely. Will Microsoft continue to invest in the platform and work hard at making sure it improves? Yes, absolutely.<br /><br />Microsoft works best when they're an underdog in a market. Look at how fast Internet Explorer evolved when Netscape was in the lead! That's the position Microsoft finds itself in right now with the Smartphone - they're the underdog with a very, very small piece of the market. But they understand the importance of mobile devices to the future of their company, and they're going to remain committed. The people who think cramming Windows XP into a PDA-sized device are drinking some funny-coloured Kool-aid. :lol:

[yada88]

Very good reply. I'd like to throw in that it's not even just smart phones that crash. I have a motorola C332 as a backup phone (hehe, it's just fun), and I've crashed it. They even put a reset (not power) button on the device for that reason. Anything that uses transistors and resistors can crash. End of story =-).

[Corn Bread]

The real point of my post was not to compare Windows Mobile and Symbian, but rather to say that ALL phones, regardless of operating system, are less stable now than when they were dumb voice terminals. If it's a computer, it will crash. It's a myth that anyone has designed the ultimate crash-proof OS. Macs don't crash? Sure they do. Linux doesn't crash? Sure it does. Symbian doesn't crash? Sure it does. Windows doesn't crash? Sure it does. If you can't admit that, then you're living on the wrong planet. The real test of an OS is how well it deals with problems when they come up, and how often it fails. It's not a matter of if it will fail, it's a matter of when. I wasn't trying to paint a picture of Symbian being an unstable OS when I saw the Nokia crash, I was simply pointing out that it did crash, and it crashed like a computer - which was the point of the post.


I think why the people responded as they did was because you never made your point clear enough on that post. Your post actually read more like "Symbian crashes, Nokia's a newbie and Microsoft rulezzzz!" (at least that's how I read it) maybe next time, you can make your point clearer. :)

[Marc Zimmermann]

I think why the people responded as they did was because you never made your point clear enough on that post. Your post actually read more like "Symbian crashes, Nokia's a newbie and Microsoft rulezzzz!" (at least that's how I read it) maybe next time, you can make your point clearer. :)
Well, I for one didn't read it as a Symbian flame.

[ppcsurfr]

I think why the people responded as they did was because you never made your point clear enough on that post. Your post actually read more like "Symbian crashes, Nokia's a newbie and Microsoft rulezzzz!" (at least that's how I read it) maybe next time, you can make your point clearer. :)
Well, I for one didn't read it as a Symbian flame.

I too didn't read it as a Symbian flame... what caught my attention was the phrase phones are (like) computers now... Even before, when they were multi-featured voice terminals... they were already prone to crashing...

But one thing those old phones could do and a whole lot of phones out there now is start up and act likea real phone no matter what's in it... unlike the MS Smartphones which act more like an overloaded PC which takes forever to do basic stuff...

Again don't get me wrong... I love my MS Smartphone, but it will take the input of a real GSM phon user to fixthe small problems we have all encountered.

Mabuhay! ~ Carlo

[TANKERx]

Very good reply. I'd like to throw in that it's not even just smart phones that crash. I have a motorola C332 as a backup phone (hehe, it's just fun), and I've crashed it. They even put a reset (not power) button on the device for that reason. Anything that uses transistors and resistors can crash. End of story =-).

Cars and helicopters crash as well, and it's even worse when that happens.

Oh, my video recorder sometimes needs to be switched off and back on because it 'hangs', so I suppose that's a crash.

My digital camera had a bit of a pwl-dwl once, so cameras crash.

Oh, and if you hit someone on the head they are unconscious for a bit, so brains can crash as well.

See, everything crashes in some shape or form...... even watches and marmots and dirigibles and zeppelins and LIGHT BULBS! :idea:

[ppcsurfr]

Cars and helicopters crash as well, and it's even worse when that happens.

Oh, my video recorder sometimes needs to be switched off and back on because it 'hangs', so I suppose that's a crash.

My digital camera had a bit of a pwl-dwl once, so cameras crash.

Oh, and if you hit someone on the head they are unconscious for a bit, so brains can crash as well.

See, everything crashes in some shape or form...... even watches and marmots and dirigibles and zeppelins and LIGHT BULBS! :idea:

That's a good one...

I have actually had the experience of having a Nokia 7110 crash on me while testing one (a friend's)... by simply activating the IR port!

And that was in 2000...

I've seen several basic GSM phones crash as well...

But it doesn't mean that because all phones crash... the manufacturers shouln't try any harder to fix tat problem...

Mabuhay! ~ Carlo

[Mike Wagstaff]

Unfortunately, it seems to be the case that there exists a generally-held perception that any OS made by MS will crash more often than any other OS. I suspect MS will find making a reliable OS to be considerably easier than altering that perception.

[Jason Dunn]

Unfortunately, it seems to be the case that there exists a generally-held perception that any OS made by MS will crash more often than any other OS. I suspect MS will find making a reliable OS to be considerably easier than altering that perception.

Microsoft bashing remains a trendy past time for many people, even when MS is the "little guy" as they are in the Smartphone world. Makes you wonder why no one bashes the market monopoly that the Symbian consortium represents eh? :roll:

[TANKERx]

Maybe it's because of the perception that Microsoft has obtained its monopoly through unfair and (some would say, though I couldn't possible comment :-) ) illegal means whereas Symbian is a consortium of competitors and as such, are achieving success through fair competition.

You should remember that thinking of Symbian as one monolithic company isn't necessarily a good thing for within it are different players, each looking for their own success yet each willing to achieve success through working with their competitors and not just using them, taking the technology and leaving them to rot.

I'm not saying that's what Microsoft is doing, but I'm not saying that's not what Microsoft is doing. What I am saying is that Symbian doesn't have a reputation for doing all that and maybe that's why people aren't accusing it of being monopolistic.

Of course, I don't think the regular normal chap in the street cares if Symbian or Microsoft runs his phone, as long as it works. So all this is just geek talk I suppose.