Internet Explorer 6 For Windows Mobile Devices - No Upgrades or Updates - New Devices Only [Archive]

Ed Hansberry

11-18-2008, 10:01 PM

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://blogs.msdn.com/windowsmobile/archive/2008/11/11/internet-explorer-mobile-6.aspx' target='_blank'>http://blogs.msdn.com/windowsmobile...r-mobile-6.aspx</a> </div>Recently the Windows Mobile team blogged a few bits about the upcoming Internet Explorer engine on Windows Mobile devices that will give you close to the full desktop experience on your device, sort of like the iPhone users have had since mid-2007. Microsoft has decided to only make this available on new devices, a factoid only revealed way down in the comments. There will be no upgrades, direct from MS or an OEM, to put this on your fancy new Windows Mobile device. It apparently can't handle it. "Regarding making IE Mobile available as a separate download or update, the rich media experiences that IE Mobile 6 enables require more powerful, advanced devices. That is why it will not be available as an upgrade or direct download for current phones, but rather will be made available on new phones." On the one hand, this stinks. On the other, I figured it would be this way anyway. MS rarely ever provides updates to the user directly, instead relying on the OEM partner to dole them out, and the OEM partners tend to offer updates such as this as often as my son picks up his clothes off of the floor voluntarily. At least this way, the OEMs won't take the heat for not providing it, which is I suspect part of the motivation behind it. OEMs are likely to be sick and tired of us users wanting cool new things on the device and calling asking for the updates, either free or for a nominal fee. This way, the OEM can now say MS isn't offering it. Pure speculation on my part of course, but I suspect there is merit to it. Wouldn't have posted it if I didn't think so. <img src="http://www.ehansberry.com/ppct/wink.gif" border="0" />

tnels!

11-18-2008, 10:26 PM

Sounds like an 'economic stimulus package' from M$. They are just doing thier best to motivate us to buy new hardware. On the other hand, where are we dumping all that old hardware? Maybe this is not a very 'green' move.

I get so confused on what is good and bad these days.

Sven Johannsen

11-18-2008, 10:46 PM

Reid Kistler

11-18-2008, 11:26 PM

So, does this open the door a bit wider for Opera Mobile?

What about Google's browser - Chrome?

whydidnt

11-19-2008, 12:00 AM

Not surprised, but what a line of BS. I'm sure we won't see any new devices running WM6 that have comparable hardware to today's devices. :rolleyes:

Since the devices we buy today have changed very little in terms of hardware (processor/memory) in the last 5 years, we are now led to believe that new devices will somehow be more powerful than old.

Then again, this just proves what a lousy strategy MS has in regards to mobile browsing. Opera has already delivered a decent browser that runs on today's devices, Apple has already delivered a decent browser that runs on a device with comparable hardware to today's devices. Heck, Nokia managed to get Firefox running on hardware with similar specs (N810). Yet, Microsoft gives us a 3 generation old browser that is still too demanding to run on today's devices. Hmmm, wonder why some of us question Microsoft's commitment to the mobile space, or if they even have a clue what they are doing in Redmond?

At this point Microsoft contineues to show that they just don't get it. I feel we are about to see a signficant shift away from Windows Mobile. Microsoft continues to show complete disregard for this market and the customers that have supported their software for the last decade.

kanzlr

11-19-2008, 01:15 AM

well, most reports say that IE6 is a bit slow as is.

other than that, I read somewhere that some OS changes are needed. that does mean a new OS build is needed. that in turn means that you have to run through the whole quality assurance chain all over again with your ROM build...I am working in SW dev for a big company, and I can assure you, the smalles code change requires full regression testing, so I doubt many would want to do that.

ianl

11-19-2008, 01:35 AM

Well said, Ed (see, I do give credit where it's due)

Just another marketing ploy from MS and the OEM's.

Maybe it does need WM6.5, which upgrade will certainly not be supplied by the OEM's.

However, the various ROM development communities are full of talented people who hate marketing lies (with good reason). So within a month or so of release, there is hope

Pony99CA

11-19-2008, 02:30 AM

"Regarding making IE Mobile available as a separate download or update, the rich media experiences that IE Mobile 6 enables require more powerful, advanced devices. That is why it will not be available as an upgrade or direct download for current phones, but rather will be made available on new phones."
I'm calling BS on this. I can accept that it can't be a separate download due to OS changes, but why can't an OEM create a new build of WM 6.1 (or WM 6.5) that includes this? Is Microsoft claiming that WM 6.5 (which I presume will include the new browser) either won't run on existing hardware or builds for older hardware won't include the new browser?

And, while IE Mobile 6 may "enable" rich media (presumably Flash and maybe Silverlight) applications, which may require more powerful devices, why can't existing devices just not have Flash and/or Silverlight support? Is Microsoft claiming that rendering the same HTML pages we can view today now requires more power in IE Mobile 6?

Of course, given that Adobe has made versions of Flash for Pocket PCs available back in the WM 2003 days (or earlier), I'm not sure I even buy that line about rich applications. Maybe the new Flash 10 or Silverlight 2 are resource hogs, but how does that affect the rest of the browser?

And what about Windows Mobile Classic devices that typically have 500 MHz or faster processors? Phones tend to have slower processors to save battery life, but PDAs are usually faster.

BS, Microsoft, BS.

Steve

Pony99CA

11-19-2008, 03:12 AM

Yea, right. We haven't seen any advancement in devices in years. We are running the same speeds and memory configurations we have been running since the last days of WM2003SE.
That's not true. Memory configurations have improved markedly. Back in WM 2003 SE, memory was limited to maybe 96 MB ROM and 64 MB RAM (because of battery life) with rare exceptions (the iPAQ 5550 had 128 MB RAM, but that was split between storage and program memory). WM 5 changed that by using flash memory for storage and only using RAM for program execution, and we now have devices with 256 MB (or more) ROM and 128 MB RAM. And that doesn't include devices like the Touch Diamond that have 4 GB (probably mapped as a fixed storage card).

Even processors have changed. I don't remember what the fastest processor in WM 2003 SE days was, but I think it was 400 MHz (it certainly was in WM 2003). Now we have devices with 500+ MHZ processors and even 624 MHz (like my iPAQ hx2795).

Granted, most of those are PDAs, not phones, because phones tend to use slower processors to maximize battery life. However, the HTC Universal had a 500+ MHz processor, and the new ASUS P565 (http://www.asus.com/news_show.aspx?id=13428) will have an 800 MHz processor.

So things have changed, just not as fast as we might have liked.

I agree that Microsoft's reasons seem wrong, but the truth doesn't need shading to prove that (see my rant above :D).

Steve

Fritzly

11-19-2008, 04:44 AM

whydidnt

11-19-2008, 04:50 AM

That's not true. Memory configurations have improved markedly. Back in WM 2003 SE, memory was limited to maybe 96 MB ROM and 64 MB RAM (because of battery life) with rare exceptions (the iPAQ 5550 had 128 MB RAM, but that was split between storage and program memory).

Even processors have changed. I don't remember what the fastest processor in WM 2003 SE days was, but I think it was 400 MHz (it certainly was in WM 2003). Now we have devices with 500+ MHZ processors and even 624 MHz (like my iPAQ hx2795).

Steve

The actual memory allotted to run programs really hasn't increased until the latest bunch of devices were released, and then only on the high end HTC Touch devices. The way WM5/6 uses RAM is pretty wasteful. Most devices have been released with only 64 MB RAM and of that often only 25 MB or so is typically available to execute programs. In the WM 2003 days we typically had 64 MB of RAM, but could chose to allocate a percent of that to running programs, usually more than half (at least in my case).

Both the Dell Axim X50v and iPaq 4700 I bought running WM 2003SE had 624 Mhz processors. Even the Universal you mentioned had a 500 Mhz Processor. We still see most new devices with processors clocked much lower than this. The just announce Asus device is the first I know of that actually offers a processor with a faster clock speed than my 5 year old iPaq.

Sorry, but I can't agree that these devices have been evolving. I have to agree with the previous poster that WM hardware has been evolving at a snails pace compared to virtually ANY other computing technology we've seen in the last 20 years. Palm and Microsoft share the blame for resting on their laurels. Thank goodness Apple and Nokia have decided to push the envelope. Without their prodding, we still be dealing with VGA or worse, 240 x 240 screens, 300- 400 Mhz processors and zilch in the way of accessible memory.

The fact that MS now decides to try and port an old desktop browser to try and "compete" and then gives us the laughable "requires more advanced hardware" makes me want to scream! How stupid do they think we are??:mad:

bubuschoeny

11-19-2008, 05:54 AM

HTC Touch $300
HTC Touch Diamond $549

Watching MS fist f#@$ consumers with IE6: Priceless

There is a storm coming and it's name is Andriod.

jfreiman

11-19-2008, 06:23 AM

I really hate this. I love having all the latest features on my phone and with the 2-year contracts we have to sign it means that either I won't have a cool phone or I'll have to pay a high price for one.
Look at the Zune model. Even the original model with differnt hardware inside still is 99.99% compatible with the models being released and sold today. Why can't that be done with phones?
I wish MS and it's partners would come together and have a deal where each device is required upgrades for 2 cycles or 2 years - after that they can stop supporting it.

Rocco Augusto

11-19-2008, 07:00 AM

alese

11-19-2008, 09:05 AM

I kind of expected that.
But I don't really care.
For one I don't think IE6 will be that great, I don't think it will be much, if at all better than Opera Mobile 9.5. The possible exception is Flash support, but by the time IE6 is actually released (and provided that it really has usable Flash support) Opera should also have Flash running.

And the other thing is, that I'm pretty sure guys on XDA-Developers will figure out how to extract the IE6 and make it installable on older hardware and in case IE6 is too integrated into WM6.5 to run on WM6.1 or lower, it doesn't matter again, as there will be at least unofficial upgrade ROMs for many if not most devices.
I'm currently running full WM6.1 not only on my new HTC Diamond, but also on my HTC Advantage 7500 that never got an official upgrade to 6.1, on my HTC Trinity that never got even official WM6 upgrade and even on my HTC Himalaya that shipped with WM2003 back in 2004 and never got any ROM upgrade at all...

Ed Hansberry

11-19-2008, 12:03 PM

cgavula

11-19-2008, 03:23 PM

As mentioned, 400MHz was not the max on WM2003/SE devices. The HP hx47xx series and the later Dell Axims all had 624MHz processors running WM 2003. Later a WM5 update was made available for purchase. Processor speed slipped after that along with the spread of the early smartphones to save battery power.

IE6 is a piece of crap anyway, despite it's past popularity. It currently doesn't even properly support popular apps like Facebook, not to mention it's many, many security holes. It was one of the least standards-compliant browsers ever causing many, many, website developers many man-hours of grief trying to make it work with their sites. Why anyone would want it on on any device, let alone an underpowered mobile device is beyond me. So instead of asking why it isn't available as a stand alone, you need to ask yourself why you care!

whydidnt

11-19-2008, 04:43 PM

This isn't solely Microsoft's fault. A large portion of the blame falls on the heads of the hardware manufactures. Microsoft is making money regardless but taking these new OS upgrades and hiring a team of developers to get the OS working on past devices requires a fair amount of money and in the end is not profitable for device manufactures to provide these updates.

Also keep in mind that Windows Mobile 6.5 and the infamous Windows Mobile 7 are right around the corner.

This isn't really a big deal, I wouldn't be surprised to see some of those crafty Windows Mobile hackers out there find a way to cook the new features into our existing devices as they have been doing for years. ;)

Rocco----

Please - it's not Microsoft's fault? Who made the decision that the browser is part of the OS and can't be upgraded independently? There isn't a technical reason it has to be tied to the OS, it's a pure business decision made by MS to require that IE be part of the ROM instead of a separately installed application.

WM 6.5 & 7 "right around the corner"? Please, we probably won't see 6.5 devices until 3rd quarter 2009 at the earliest, and mark my words it will be late 2010 before 7 is actually available on devices. Unless your corner is in the next city, I'm not sure I'd use those words.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not all that disappointed that I can't load IE6 on my existing devices, truth is it's a terrible strategy on Microsoft's part. My issue is with the outright lies Microsoft pushes to explain these decisions. And to a lesser extent, comments such as yours that tend to excuse Microsoft for these decisions. It's part of a bigger issue I have with how poorly Microsoft has performed in the mobile space over the last several years. Instead of actually addressing the issues and needs, we simply get corporate double speak. I'm reminded of the recent Mac commmercial, where "PC" is allocating all his money to marketing, instead of fixing Vista". I typically hate those Mac commercials, but that one does seem to hit a little close to home.

whydidnt

11-19-2008, 04:45 PM

It also occurs to me that if IE6 is bundled with WM6.5, and IE6 requires new hardware (according to that blog post) then there will be no WM6.5 upgrades made available, only new hardware can handle it. :mad:

That would seem to be true, but of course who really thinks the new hardware will really be any different than the old hardware? We haven't seen much progress in the last 7-8 years, do you really think there will be huge strides in the next 12 months?

possmann

11-19-2008, 05:01 PM

What a load of Bunk! I could not agree more with all of the comments and posts - AUGH :mad:!

However I go back to comments I have ranted on before (without getting off topic Pony99CA :o) I think people like us are considered power users while the majority of people buying these types of phones really don't use or may be consered with the majority of features *that could be* if things were done differently.

Many times I have hoped and prayed that someday, PDA phones (aka "smartphones") would be treated just like PC/laptops; the consumer shops around and buys a device and we then shop around for a suitable service plan - just like we do for an ISP (Internet Service Provider). The updates for the OS come directly from the Operating System manufacturer - not the service provider. Additional features (or service offerings like "VCAST" or "Sprint TV" etc...) could be added on just like if we were to add on a software application on our PC/Laptops.

There is NO reason that this could not occur TODAY. The benift from this would be huge for all parties; OS problems fall on the responsibility of the OS maker and updates could be easily pushed to devices (finally putting that now usless useless Windows Update icon to use) instead of having to be screened by the carrier. The reason the carrier doesn't want to send out updates is beacuse it is a waste of money to them - they have to insure that their custom applications they developed still work and that costs money - with no additional revenue for them. Were is their incentive?

So have the carrier build their little custom applications and charge a monthly fee to provide that service instead of baking that in to the devices ROM. Kind of sounds like Software as a Service doesn't it - hmm where have we seen that model before?

If we could move to this model think of how much better off we would be?

Rounding back to the comments in the Blog - so if we wanted to "upgrade" or get new features from MS we would have to insure that our devices' hardware would be able to handle it - you all know we call that "minimum system specifications/requirements" We see that on every software application we buy for our PC's/Laptops today - why would it be different with PDA/Phone devices? We check or devices hardware specs, if they can handle the push, we get it, if not we can elect to get a new device that can handle the beefier requirements.

I really believe that some day we'll get there - but it will take a revolution... Some one (some carrier) needs to make that first step...

Sven Johannsen

11-19-2008, 10:44 PM

That's not true. Memory configurations have improved markedly. Back in WM 2003 SE, memory was limited to maybe 96 MB ROM and 64 MB RAM
Steve
Been disputed by others, so I won't belabor it, but my WM2003SE Dell X50 had a 624Mhz processor and 128M of RAM due to a PPCTechs upgrade. I think the battery limitation prior to the non-volitile RAM was only half the issue there. Back then Flash RAM was expensive, compared to today, and you couldn't build a competitavely priced PDA with the extra RAM. We've had the capability to build those devices for some time, and now that the technology is getting more affordable, we aren't seeing many 'high end' devices pushing the limits of anything new, even at premium prices. MS can't afford to build a new OS that requires cutting edge ($$$) technology, they would need to build for the norm, and the norm isn't much better than what was available for the same price 2-3 years ago.

Pony99CA

11-20-2008, 12:13 AM

It also occurs to me that if IE6 is bundled with WM6.5, and IE6 requires new hardware (according to that blog post) then there will be no WM6.5 upgrades made available, only new hardware can handle it. :mad:
That was one of the things that I asked about. The other possibility is that there will be a build of WM 6.5 that doesn't include IE Mobile 6 for older/slower devices. Remember the old Pocket PC Professional/Premium split?

Steve

Pony99CA

11-20-2008, 12:25 AM

Been disputed by others, so I won't belabor it, but my WM2003SE Dell X50 had a 624Mhz processor and 128M of RAM due to a PPCTechs upgrade.
Yes, I apparently got the 624 MHz time wrong (which is why I said that I don't remember what processors were the fastest when WM 2003 SE was released ;)), but saying you had 128 MB RAM thanks to a warranty-voiding upgrade hardly counts. That's like saying you overclock your CPU (which you could also d9 with Windows Mobile).

You also edited out where I said that some devices (like my iPAQ 5550) did have 128 MB RAM. However, that RAM was divided among storage and programs, so you couldn't really use most of the RAM for program execution.

I think the battery limitation prior to the non-volitile RAM was only half the issue there. Back then Flash RAM was expensive, compared to today, and you couldn't build a competitavely priced PDA with the extra RAM.
I'm sure that's true, but economics is part of building a device. People complained about the $750 price of the old iPAQ 3970 or the high prices some unlocked phones debut at. OEMs have to perform a balancing act between power, battery life and cost. While some people might pay $1000 for the latest PDA phone, I certainly wouldn't, and I consider myself a gadget geek.

But see my next post for something more pithy. ;)

Steve

Pony99CA

11-20-2008, 12:30 AM

Sorry, but I can't agree that these devices have been evolving. I have to agree with the previous poster that WM hardware has been evolving at a snails pace compared to virtually ANY other computing technology we've seen in the last 20 years.
You contradict yourself. Evolving at a snail's pace is still evolving. ;) Yes, things haven't evolved as fast as we'd like, but they are moving forward (although perhaps in different directions, like adding phones and high-speed data).

Palm and Microsoft share the blame for resting on their laurels. Thank goodness Apple and Nokia have decided to push the envelope. Without their prodding, we still be dealing with VGA or worse, 240 x 240 screens, 300- 400 Mhz processors and zilch in the way of accessible memory.
Oh, please. While I agree that Palm and Microsoft rested on their laurels, we had 624 MHz processors long before Apple entered the market and 320x240 screens were standard. Also, unless I'm badly mistaken, the iPhone doesn't even have VGA resolution.

The fact that MS now decides to try and port an old desktop browser to try and "compete" and then gives us the laughable "requires more advanced hardware" makes me want to scream! How stupid do they think we are??:mad:
I agree with you 100% on that. :)

Steve

JKingGrim

11-20-2008, 01:52 AM

...require more powerful, advanced devicesVery funny. This has already been hacked out of a beta diamond ROM and is shipping in custom ROMs for many devices. lol. Does anyone still use the slow crap bloatware packed ROMs that these devices ship with?

Rocco Augusto

11-20-2008, 01:59 AM

Rocco----

Please - it's not Microsoft's fault? Who made the decision that the browser is part of the OS and can't be upgraded independently? There isn't a technical reason it has to be tied to the OS, it's a pure business decision made by MS to require that IE be part of the ROM instead of a separately installed application.

What I said was it isn't solely Microsoft's fault. ;)

Microsoft has a part to play but unfortunately they have to make decisions that keep all of their Windows Mobile hardware manufacturers happy and if I am not mistaken they have a LOT of hardware manufacturers. I'm sure if the decision rested only on Microsoft's shoulders then we would all receive updates for our devices.

Heck, didn't Microsoft state a little over a year ago that they would offer free Windows Mobile updates to any hardware manufacture that wanted to release it for their clients?

Look at the Zune, a platform in which Microsoft controls both the hardware and software aspect of the environment. I am still receiving new firmware updates for my first generation Zune. Why? Because Microsoft isn't stupid, they understand that if you upgrade the products you will keep customers happy. In this situation though if Microsoft updates everyone's software than the hardware manufactuers do not make money selling new hardware. So yes, while we are getting screwed it is not because Microsoft hates us but because they most likely had to make a business decisions that keeps their customers (device makers) happy and making money so they can buy more products from Microsoft.

Microsoft get's the bad rap because their name is on the operating system but the truth is that we are not Microsoft's Windows Mobile customers at all, companies like HTC and Motorola are Microsoft's customers in this field and we in turn are customers of the device makers.

WM 6.5 & 7 "right around the corner"? Please, we probably won't see 6.5 devices until 3rd quarter 2009 at the earliest, and mark my words it will be late 2010 before 7 is actually available on devices. Unless your corner is in the next city, I'm not sure I'd use those words.

Rumors have been flying around that Microsoft will announce Windows Mobile 6.5 during Q1 2009, which is right around the corner. If these rumors are true we should start to hear rumblings from either Microsoft or another one of their anxious partners anywhere between 1-4 months from now. Motorola has already stated that they have a team working with Microsoft to help make Windows Mobile 6.5 something to talk about. I'm sure other device makers are already working to bring Windows Mobile 6.5 to their upcoming lineup of handsets as well.

If you already have groups of people working on Windows Mobile 6.5, why pull them off the project to work on upgrade for the inferior, at least in version number, Windows Mobile 6.1.4?

Plus I don't see the big deal at all, we all know that Internet Explorer 6 was a disgusting excuse for a browser. We should be PRAISING Microsoft for not releasing this update to our devices ;) (that was sarcasm for anyone that didn't pick up on it!)

alese

11-20-2008, 06:08 AM

Well for what is worth, like one poster above mentioned, IE6 is allready in some un-official ROMs that you can download for your devices, so the new HW part is a load of crap. But that was pretty obvious since they have to test both IE6 and WM 6.5 on some real HW anyway so of course it works on current HW...

In any case I'll be downloading a new ROM for my Advantage this weekend that includes IE6 and see for myself if it's usable at all.

Rocky Sullivan

11-20-2008, 05:43 PM

I strongly believe that, thirty years from now, the way MS is killing its share in the mobile segment will be a case study for people attending Economic Courses in the Universities.
I am not sure if what we saw is a monument to ignorance, stupidity, arrogance or a mix of all of them.

I agree with this but dont believe it will take 30 years - in 3 years time windows mobile will be to smartphones what Palm became, obsolete and a foot note in gadget history.

Microsoft have really dropped the ball with Windows Mobile but the concerning thing is they dropped it two years ago and have been fumbling ever since. WM7 will likely be a huge improvement but by the time it is released the current versions of the Iphone, Android and Symbian will have developed even further.

Pony99CA

11-21-2008, 12:21 AM

Does anyone still use the slow crap bloatware packed ROMs that these devices ship with?
I do. Personally, I think cooked ROMs are basically pirated software.

It's one thing to strip the bloatware out of a ROM, because then the person isn't getting anything more than they've paid for. It's still a gray area, though, because they are technically still distributing software they don't own.

It's another thing completely when somebody takes something like WM 6.1 and makes it available for devices that don't have an official upgrade. That's software piracy pure and simple, and I'm surprised that Microsoft or the OEMs haven't tried to shut that down (or, if they have tried, that they've failed so far).

It strikes me as strange that sites that wouldn't allow discussion of where to find pirated music allow discussion of where to find pirated ROMs.

Steve

alese

11-21-2008, 06:06 AM

I do. Personally, I think cooked ROMs are basically pirated software.

It's one thing to strip the bloatware out of a ROM, because then the person isn't getting anything more than they've paid for. It's still a gray area, though, because they are technically still distributing software they don't own.

It's another thing completely when somebody takes something like WM 6.1 and makes it available for devices that don't have an official upgrade. That's software piracy pure and simple, and I'm surprised that Microsoft or the OEMs haven't tried to shut that down (or, if they have tried, that they've failed so far).

It strikes me as strange that sites that wouldn't allow discussion of where to find pirated music allow discussion of where to find pirated ROMs.

Steve

This is off topic but...
I guess you are right about that, but you see I use HTC and WM devices for two reasons.
One is XDA developes and the fact that I know I'll be getting support and new ROMs for my device, something you rearly if at all get from Microsoft and/or HTC/carrier. I also believe that both Microsoft and HTC know that such a community does much much more good in promoting and supporting the platform than all the companies together. That's probably the reason why they don't shut them down.
The other reason is software, both the one that I have bought and love to use and the fact that there is huge selection of applications for almost anything.
You take away one of these reasons and I'll have no reason to use WM.
And for what is worth, my current main device (Diamond) is still on default ROM since I haven't have the reason to do an upgrade yet.

Rocco Augusto

11-21-2008, 07:15 AM

I do. Personally, I think cooked ROMs are basically pirated software.

Yep, this is why we never report on stories of cooked ROMs or give out links to where people can get them. Though I would be a liar if I said I never used a cooked ROM before as I have in the past just to try it out and actually flash my device with something new for the simple fact of entertaining myself for a good hour and a half, but, we still won't report on it. :)

efjay

11-21-2008, 05:06 PM

If these rumoured layoff are true could they be related to WM's current lack of popularity thus leading to less demand for Palm devices and decreased need for sales and marketing staff?

http://www.palminfocenter.com/news/7257/a-round-of-layoffs-at-palm/

As my signature indicates, I too am tired of MS and their apparent complete lack of commitment and even basic desire to bring WM up to date with its competitors. The BS about not providing a PIE6 update to current devices for the reasons stated are shocking and at the same time a sad indication that MS really are impotent when it comes to their own mobile OS. I will never buy an iphone or google phone but I do look forward to future Nokia N-series touchscreen devices.

I have been using WM devices since the latter half of 2004 and though I dont have any real issues with the current interface (I believe hardware manufacturers can do more to "pretty up" WM if they really wanted to eg Samsungs TouchWiz on the Omnia is basically just eye candy with very limited functionality) its MS's own seeming contempt for its user base that makes me finally want to be rid of my WM phone. Back when PIE6 was originally announced there was no mention of having to buy new devices to run it but now yet again MS seems incapable of moving the OS forward without requiring users to shell out to replace devices that are hardly 6 months old. Their stance is made all the more laughable by the performance of Opera on current devices and makes one wonder what exactly the so called "rich experiences" PIE6 is going to bring that is not already currently available with Opera.

As for the assertion that XDA is the solution, its hardly an ideal way to give consumers the best experience by telling them to go to XDA, download an unofficial rom for which they will receive no support from their carrier.

Pony99CA

11-21-2008, 10:55 PM

As for the assertion that XDA is the solution, its hardly an ideal way to give consumers the best experience by telling them to go to XDA, download an unofficial rom for which they will receive no support from their carrier.
Agreed. Imagine seeing this year's model of your car had cool new rims, and you wanted to buy some, so you go to your car dealer....

YOU: I love the new rims on this year's SUX 1000. How much are they?

DEALER: Sorry, but we can only sell them to owners of the new models. Your model doesn't have enough horsepower to handle those rims. Don't worry, though -- the cars are selling like crazy and you'll probably find rims at your local chop shop soon.

Steve

JKingGrim

11-21-2008, 11:46 PM

As for the assertion that XDA is the solution, its hardly an ideal way to give consumers the best experience by telling them to go to XDA, download an unofficial rom for which they will receive no support from their carrier.I agree, I certainly wasnt suggesting this was the solution. My main point in posting that was debunking the lie that they cant release updates because older hardware cant handle it.

And I see where you are coming from saying that it is software piracy. I would argue that it is unfair that we are subjected to the manufacturers whims when it comes to updates. It would be simply outrageous if Dell made you buy a new PC every year to keep your OS up to date. They are treating WM devices like they are disposable get-a-new-one-every-year flip phones. These devices cost several hundred dollars. Disposable crap they are not.

Yet I understand stealing, no matter how unfair you think the situation, is still stealing. So perhaps it is piracy, but laying down and taking the crap they spew at us is not a path I like either. I purchased the device and I purchased third party programs.

Fritzly

11-22-2008, 07:48 PM

I'm surprised that Microsoft or the OEMs haven't tried to shut that down (or, if they have tried, that they've failed so far).
Steve

Maybe neither OEM or MS do anything because these developers do the works they should do.
Let us say I buy a HTC device and after three months a new release of the OS is out; HTC does not care to test and make available the new OS for already sold devices, MS decided long ago to be at the mercy of hardware manifacturers, and in the US of the carriers, so they both rely on independent developers to keep customers not too unhappy and, at least some of them, willing to buy hardware from the same manifacturer in the future.

Pony99CA

11-22-2008, 10:07 PM

Maybe neither OEM or MS do anything because these developers do the works they should do.
Let us say I buy a HTC device and after three months a new release of the OS is out; HTC does not care to test and make available the new OS for already sold devices, MS decided long ago to be at the mercy of hardware manifacturers, and in the US of the carriers, so they both rely on independent developers to keep customers not too unhappy and, at least some of them, willing to buy hardware from the same manifacturer in the future.
I've heard of that take before. Microsoft isn't really hurt because the OEM isn't producing the upgrade anyway. HTC, knowing someone will cook the ROM, doesn't need to spend money developing upgrades (so they're using the hackers as unpaid developers). Plus, using a hacked ROM probably voids any warranty on the device, so HTC can actually reduce warranty expenses (although that may be balanced by people bricking their devices doing the upgrade).

However, what about when they rip software that HTC (or another OEM) paid to develop and make that available for other devices. I think they'd want to go after them for that, because then there's no incentive for people to buy HTC phones for the proprietary software.

And, of course, it's still violating the law. In intellectual property law, if you don't protect your property, I believe you can lose rights to it.

However, I think this is drifting a bit far off-topic, so I'll stop with that.

Steve

maxnix

11-24-2008, 06:19 AM

There will be no upgrades, direct from MS or an OEM, to put this on your fancy new Windows Mobile device. It apparently can't handle it. 
So isn't this tantamount to MS admitting their HTML rendering code is not as efficient as virtually anyone else's as most of the most powerful CPU are in WM handsets?

The future of WM is flickering into a dark, empty abyss.

Kirkaiya

11-26-2008, 03:04 AM

Been disputed by others, so I won't belabor it, but my WM2003SE Dell X50 had a 624Mhz processor and 128M of RAM due to a PPCTechs upgrade. I think the battery limitation prior to the non-volitile RAM was only half the issue there. Back then Flash RAM was expensive, compared to today, and you couldn't build a competitavely priced PDA with the extra RAM. We've had the capability to build those devices for some time, and now that the technology is getting more affordable, we aren't seeing many 'high end' devices pushing the limits of anything new, even at premium prices. MS can't afford to build a new OS that requires cutting edge ($$$) technology, they would need to build for the norm, and the norm isn't much better than what was available for the same price 2-3 years ago.

I think that's an unfair comparison - you're comparing a high-end PDA that you then customized using a niche service (PPCTechs), and comparing that to cellphones "out of the box" today.

PDAs never had to worry about battery-life the way mobile phones do, since a mobile phone has a radio (or multiple radios) that are always on, often an always-on digital connection such as EDGE or a 3G data band that's also always connected. Most PDAs in 2003 also didn't have bluetooth, or even VGA (640x480) displays, although a few of the highest-end models did.

Comparing the best Windows Mobile SmartPhone from 2004 (which would have run WM2003SE maybe) to the current "best" WM mobile phones, and there's a signficant jump in performance. My 6-month-old handset is an HTC Touch Diamond, which sports a 528 MHz processor, 192 MB RAM, and 4 GB of on-board storage out of the box, without any PPCTech upgrades involved.

And the Diamond is not even the highest-end WM phone - the Touch HD has an 800 x 480 display, and more RAM.

For Microsoft to argue that this kind of h/w isn't going to be capable of running IE6 Mobile tells us that Microsoft is either:

(a) Lying, and using vague technical nonsense to explain away their inability to deliver IE6 Mobile due to other reasons (deals with handset makers, or too much trouble to bundle seperately, whatever)

(b) Telling the truth, which implies that IE6 is going to require a 600 MHz+ processor and at least 256 MB RAM to run in - in other words, it's more of a resource hog than all of Windows 95 was, which ran on lower hardware specs. It would be the most bloated, resource-pig of any mobile app of all time.

I suspect most of us think it's "a", because if little Opera can make a decent, pan & zoom, multi-tabbed, desktop-experience browser that HTC saw fit to bundle with the Diamond, then it's hard to believe that Microsoft can't either. They absolutely could offer it as a seperate download, much like Firefox Mobile is going to be, and allow users to install it to their storage cards, or whatever, for people with evil carriers that "lock" their phones.

But does anyone here really think that HTC, say, isn't willing to offer a downloadable ROM upgrade for people who want IE6 "baked in" ??? I've met with HTC's country-manager for Thailand, and they're willing to bend over backwards for customers, they're one of the biggest smartphone makers on the planet, and a lot of their sales are unlocked phones (like mine).

I wrote before, on another thread, that it almost seems like Microsoft is trying to lose the mobile OS wars. They've let RIM slip past them in market share, then delayed their own next-version mobile OS, WM7, by a half-year or so, then announced that there will be another 6.x (6.5) version, and now say that their mobile browser won't run on current hardware? Whaaa? Next year's hardware is going to be so much greater than this year?

Looking at Android, I am starting to believe that 2009 is going to be a big year for Google's linux-based OS, and a bad year for WinMo. I've had WM devices since my Cassiopeia E11, and three different WM mobile phones - but Android isn't going to prevent people from downloading and installing the newest version of a browser (heck, it's got two browsers already). Apple's iPhone is not in any danger from Android, I think, but the most vulnerable cow in the herd has a "Microsoft" branding on it's rump, and I think Android just might take it down to "niche" status.

Kirkaiya

11-26-2008, 03:14 AM

Yep, this is why we never report on stories of cooked ROMs or give out links to where people can get them. Though I would be a liar if I said I never used a cooked ROM before as I have in the past just to try it out and actually flash my device with something new for the simple fact of entertaining myself for a good hour and a half, but, we still won't report on it. :)

If it's somebody else's cooked ROM, I'd agree (though I too won't deny ever trying one out!). Legally, though, you're on safe grounds if you extract your own ROM, modify it, and then reflash your device. It's fair use of software that you own, and the only EULA that shipped with my phone was sealing the CD that came with it, which I never opened (and EULAs are themselves on rather shaky legal ground, and often tossed out by courts).

I can't believe Microsoft, with $23 billion in cash reserves, is screwing the pooch so badly on Windows Mobile, and IE6 Mobile. Just boggles my mind that they cannot get a faster, less tiny-nested-menu OS out the door before next fall, and that they refuse to offer application upgrades like IE6 as a separate download (much like they have offered patches - fixing IMAP for example - as a separate download, or how they used to offer SQL Express as a separate download, etc).

Un-friggin-believable. If WM7 doesn't absolutely blow everything else away, I think they'll be a vertical-niche OS inside of 3 years. I look at Palm OS, and the mistakes and delays there, and it's like deja vu.

Pony99CA

11-26-2008, 04:09 AM

If it's somebody else's cooked ROM, I'd agree (though I too won't deny ever trying one out!). Legally, though, you're on safe grounds if you extract your own ROM, modify it, and then reflash your device.
I wouldn't say you're on safe ground. That may be true if you only delete things from the ROM or add freeware, but if you add tools that were ripped from other devices, cracked software, etc., you're still breaking the law.

It's fair use of software that you own, and the only EULA that shipped with my phone was sealing the CD that came with it, which I never opened (and EULAs are themselves on rather shaky legal ground, and often tossed out by courts).
Most EULAs prohibit reverse engineering, but, as you say, you aren't required to read it, so it may not apply. Maybe Microsoft needs to have a Terms Of Service screen appear after every hard reset. :D

However, I'm not sure that it is fair use (in the legal sense). You're creating a derivative work (hence a copy), and that may fall out of the fair use guidelines even if you don't distribute it. As far as I know, the only safe ground for software is making a backup/archival copy. (I'm not a lawyer -- I don't even play one on TV -- so I could be wrong.)

Steve

Kirkaiya

11-26-2008, 04:58 AM

I wouldn't say you're on safe ground. That may be true if you only delete things from the ROM or add freeware, but if you add tools that were ripped from other devices, cracked software, etc., you're still breaking the law.

Um... I am pretty sure that, nowhere in my post, did I suggest "ripping" things from other devices, or using cracked software.

My point stands - if you are extracting your own ROM, manipulating that ROM (by changing default cache sizes, substituting a new color scheme, leaving out apps you don't want, etc), then you're on safe ground. I at no point even mentioned "ripped" or "cracked" software, anywhere. So I am confused as to what you're talking about.

Most EULAs prohibit reverse engineering, but, as you say, you aren't required to read it, so it may not apply. Maybe Microsoft needs to have a Terms Of Service screen appear after every hard reset. :D

Even then, I doubt it would stand up in court. Many court-cases involving EULAs are dropped by plaintiffs like Microsoft before they go to court, specifically because Microsoft and other companies fear a binding ruling on EULAs that strips them of whatever shaky legality they might now possess.

However, I'm not sure that it is fair use (in the legal sense). You're creating a derivative work (hence a copy), and that may fall out of the fair use guidelines even if you don't distribute it. As far as I know, the only safe ground for software is making a backup/archival copy. (I'm not a lawyer -- I don't even play one on TV -- so I could be wrong.)

This turns out not to be the case - the courts have ruled that you are explicitly allowed to modify and create "derivative works" from IP (intellectual property) that you own, if it's for your own use and you don't distribute it. One case that made this clear was when movie studios were suing to stop a company from removing nude scenes from movies and then selling them as "family" versions. While the company was ultimately prohibited from doing this, the Judge said that if people want to do this on their own, in their own homes, for their own use, then it falls under "fair use".

The only law you'd have to be careful of is the DMCA, since it forbids circumventing DRM, but my HTC's Windows Mobile is not DRMd, so as I said- I'm only reasonably legal grounds.