Database Info

Will there be an High-end WP7 phone? Like HD2 was for WM?

I know that WP7 isn't finished yet. But personally WP7 should get, soon a high-end device. Like the HD2 was for WM.
Almost a majority of new phones now have x GB of internal memory, 1 GHZ processor etc.
In my opinion HD7 series, LG, Samsung Omnia 7, they are based on technology which is already out there.
When will we see the a phone for WP7? Which was like the HD2 was for WM?

Never. Microsoft has strict uniformity rules and restrictions that each OEM must follow. All the phones will be almost the same just different screen sizes, cameras, etc.

vetvito said:
Never. Microsoft has strict uniformity rules and restrictions that each OEM must follow. All the phones will be almost the same just different screen sizes, cameras, etc.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Steve Balmer, thats stupid.

How is that stupid? It means whatever WP7 phone you buy will perform great out of the box. It will run all the WP7 apps/games as well as the next phone. It means you can buy the phone that's right for you without having to pay attention to the, often, small-print telling you if it's running Android 1.6 on a 600MHz chip with hardly any memory or if it's a real powerhouse.

I think he more means a phone that is better than the minimum specs. 1.5ghz cpu etc

ahhh yes because all the current WP just use the minimum specs....not the more recommend ones (whatever those might be, if they even exist) so while yes the current crop use the minimum requirements there shouldn't be nothing major holding OEMs from bumping up the specs a little

If I am even gonna consider af WP7 phone. I want a WP7 phone with a processor faster than 1 ghz and good graphics and a Amoled screen and a camera better than 5 megaxiels.

Euroman28 said:
If I am even gonna consider af WP7 phone. I want a WP7 phone with a processor faster than 1 ghz and good graphics and a Amoled screen and a camera better than 5 megaxiels.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why you want faster processor? It won't give any benefits at the moment. Omnia7 is the best

rcrawford611 said:
ahhh yes because all the current WP just use the minimum specs....not the more recommend ones (whatever those might be, if they even exist) so while yes the current crop use the minimum requirements there shouldn't be nothing major holding OEMs from bumping up the specs a little
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Windows Phone 7 only has support for the Qualcomm QSD8x50 chipset at the moment. That's it. What has caused the confusion here is the slides at Mix10 saying "minimum spec". We can only assume that means WP7 will support faster chipsets in the future - ie. WP7.5 or WP8.
So yes, there is something holding back the OEMs - there is no OS support.
Euroman28 said:
If I am even gonna consider af WP7 phone. I want a WP7 phone with a processor faster than 1 ghz and good graphics and a Amoled screen and a camera better than 5 megaxiels.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why do you want a faster processor? Have you handled a WP7 device? Do you realize it's much faster and smoother than any Android phone on the market? Adding a faster CPU will not make it recognize your taps any quicker - it is already instant.

Microsoft have to add the driver for the soc before a manufacturer can release the phone. That is why all phones currently released have the same mobile cpu.
It has been rumored that the next update will include more drivers for more qualcomm SOCs... I want to see a driver for the Tegra 2.

vetvito said:
Never. Microsoft has strict uniformity rules and restrictions that each OEM must follow. All the phones will be almost the same just different screen sizes, cameras, etc.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Its a minimum spec, not a required one.

barryallott said:
It has been rumored that the next update will include more drivers for more qualcomm SOCs... I want to see a driver for the Tegra 2.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have a feeling they will be sticking with Qualcomm. I'd imagine that more variations in types of SoC make hardware optimization that much more difficult.

Samsung's not going to let that sit on themselves on mid- or longterm. Microsoft will have to let them use the Hummingbird and Orion at some point. Seeing how they have a rather large foothold in the WP7 market, it's a huge risk to force them to continue to unnecessarily use a competitor's components.

You won't see any phones that are head and shoulders above the rest anytime soon. With "NoDo" they have at least support for additional Qualcomm chipsets which probably means they support the QSD8650 for CDMA, MSM8255 and MSM8655 for the Adreno 205 GPU's. If they also added support for a dual core Scorpion, that would be a huge plus for some powerful devices later but I wouldn't get my hopes up too high yet but I can't be too sure.
In terms of Cameras, the sensor has to be at least 5MP, it could be higher like the HTC 7 Mozart which I believe has a 8MP camera.
With internal storage, it has to be at least 8GB but can be higher like the DVP which comes in 8GB and 16GB versions. This in my opinion should be changed to a minimum 16GB but it's probably for cost reasons.
RAM also has a requirement of 256MB which I think should be a minimum 512MB like the Samsung or HTC devices.

ViewPad 10Pro

Found this very interesting article on gsmarena about an upcoming tablet by Viewsonic... I never thought it was possible but dual booting Windows 7 and Android 2.2+ ? What does this mean for our Gtab? your thoughts?
http://blog.gsmarena.com/viewsonic-unveils-dual-sim-v350-phone-and-dual-boot-viewpad-10pro/
**I hope that our Gtab would live on even after all these radical tablet advances for 2011.

Intel CPU. For Android, it must be compiled for that CPU I assume - but since so many apps are ARM-based it might limit its usefulness.

atom cpu = crap battery life for this type of device. About the same as a netbook, 3.5 hrs or so compared to 10+ hrs of ARM based tegra2 in gtabs. Plus win7 on an atom performance would probably be pretty low. Not worth it.

s14tam said:
atom cpu = crap battery life for this type of device. About the same as a netbook, 3.5 hrs or so compared to 10+ hrs of ARM based tegra2 in gtabs. Plus win7 on an atom performance would probably be pretty low. Not worth it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
this i agree on... kinda funny how, in the article, viewsonic stated that the battery life will "last at least 6 hours"... with day-to-day use that might translate to about 3-4 hours tops just hope that Gtab support by viewsonic (however little it may be) won't be discontinued just cuz they have a new toy to market now...

Inclined to also agree but must say that the atom cpu on my HP2140 netbook running win7 Pro isn't the slowest turtle in the race. Extended battery gives me about 5-6 hrs. Wouldn't expect that life on a tab though.

Recently, I've been doing some testing of Android X86, and their FAQ mentions that some Apps may work, while others, that use native ARM code, won't. I know that that's probably pretty obvious, but it seems like VS should caution potential users about that, or they'll get a bunch of unhappy users when they can't run all Android Alps.
Jim

Nah this isnt a run of the mill Atom. Its the one they made after Moorestown to fight these ARM tabs. Oak trail is an SOC much like Tegra. Its supposed to have super low TDP and pull off ARM like battery life. Since desktop apps tend to be more demanding, this remains to be seen.

I don't think they said it will have full market ability stock anyways so people can't really complain if it can't run all apps.
Also, doubt any x86 proc can match an ARM chip in battery even if it is a SOC. Viewsonics page even seems to confirm this as it says it is rated for 4hrs.

At work, we're starting to talk with Microsoft about ARM versions of Windows. I've tossed my name into the hat as a developer. I suspect I won't be able to use my G-Tablet but will forced to get some other Windows ARM device.
So far Microsoft is keeping things fairly quiet on the ARM front. I expect to find out more in the next several months.
Sent from my G-Tablet running Vega-Nb5.1

Unlike the first Viewpad 10 you don't have to reboot to switch between Android and Windows. Here's a video:
http://www.engadget.com/2011/02/14/viewsonic-viewpad-10pro-hands-on/

Dual Core = Overkill

I know i'm gonna get burned at the stake for this one, since this is a tech forum, but dual core is just overkill AT THE PRESENT MOMENT. It's like computers. They are all now dualcore, most come with almost 4 gigs of ram. What in the hell would 95% of the population need AT THE MOMENT with something more powerful than that? LIke a quadcore with 8 gigs? NOTHING. It's just a ploy to get more money. Our 1ghz phones can run everything just fine. This isn't like the early days of android where it always felt like more ram and raw power was needed. We have hit a plateau where the current cellphone landscape fits MOST peoples needs. Can i really be the only one who thinks that it's just unnecessary?
Remember, xda only represents .0000000001% of actual real world use. I am talking about the layman who is actually gonna fall for the "OMFG ITS GONNA DO EVERYTHING SO MUCH BETTER AND FASTER", um no it's not. Most people dont even max out there current hardware.
Edit: Seriously people get a grip on reality. I'm not pushing my views on anyone. It's a ****ing forum, you know, one of those places where people discuss things??? The debate that has come out of this has been fantastic, and i have learned alot of things i didnt know. I'm not gonna change my original post to not confuse people reading the whole topic, but i can now understand why dual core does make some sense. Quit attacking me and making stuff so personal, it's uncalled for and frankly i'm about to ask a mod to close this topic cause it's getting so ridiculous. Learn how to have a debate without letting all the emotion get in the way or GTFO. YOUR the one with the problem, not me.

Xda doesn't care. We like specs, maxing out our devices, and most of all, benchmarking

redbullcat said:
Xda doesn't care. We like specs, maxing out our devices, and most of all, benchmarking
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well as do i! I'm talking about the uneducated masses.

more cores mean;
more threads
meaning better apps
meaning better FPS
meaning HD everything
meaning more capabilities
meaning more fun with less devices.
Do you remember the days you had a cell phone, a PDA, an MP3 player, a digital camera AND a laptop? All that was missing is your bat symbol and cape. I like not having to have a utility belt of gadgets on my person.

I would rather see them work on battery saving and density technologies to eventually allow for one week [heavy usage] times.

iamnottypingthis said:
I would rather see them work on battery saving and density technologies to eventually allow for one week [heavy usage] times.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hard for you to believe, i know, but that's what having a multi-core does, it helps improve battery life (both in standby and in usage). Sure it's not a definitive answer to our battery problems, but it's a first.

Hey Lude219, I thought I'd post this as I thought you gave a good explanation on battery life and usage (fifth one down).
It really all comes down to the person's requirements. If someone requires to run several apps at once, or requires to watch movies at a higher frame rate, or requires to have the 'best phone on the market', then they'll buy a dual-core phone, no-one else will care (much). Most people I talk to agree and think that Dual-Core in a phone is unnecessary ('dual-core phone' it even sounds ridiculous lol), but, I must admit that I was surprised at how laggy my DHD was out the packet, and don't get me wrong, I know once it's rooted it will be much better just because the SW is cleaner, but most people will not even contemplate rooting their phone, so if it's not an option for them, dual-core will surely help.
Dual-core procs don't have a higher power consumption than single-core procs (or at least they won't if they design/implement them properly), so it shouldn't (fingers crossed) make power consumption any worse.
Personally, I'd also rather they put they're time and effort into making better batteries and improving general power consumption.
It'll be the next marketing point after the dual-core hype has ebbed (Now with Three Days Standby!! YEY!!)

Well i think most people who do buy these "powerful" devices have one important reason to buy, and that is to future proof themselves. But ey, i'm looking at the perspective of a tech savy guy, I suppose the masses simply want the next best thing.
But you are right however, it is a ploy to make money, but everything in business is, so there's no difference between dual core, one core, 8 mp camera, 5 mp, 720p. 1080p, it's all business. If there was no business then.. well, where'd we get our smartphones?

lude219 said:
Hard for you to believe, i know, but that's what having a multi-core does, it helps improve battery life (both in standby and in usage). Sure it's not a definitive answer to our battery problems, but it's a first.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I can easily go into why you're wrong, but I won't waste the calories. Other things besides just adding a core are done to get those gains. If more cores equaled more power savings, ULV cpus would be octo-core.

Just a matter time when they get battery life ironed out in smartphones and to the OP i would agree in some aspect, but they are smartphones why not just keep improving them. Else if someone never thought outside box we would still stuck with dumb phones =no fun.
here a link for next gen snap dragons sounds promising.

I won't lie, right now dual core is overkill. But in time like everything else has computer wise, it will be the normal and will be the way all devices go, that's not just considering dual core. I'm talking pure multicore threading. It's not just the number of cores you're buying as well, it's the difference core to core when you compare say arm cortex a8 to the Tegra II's Arm Cortex a9, single core the a9 will be faster and more efficient and also produce less heat thanks to the die shrink, which then also means less power draw per core. Right now for phones, dual core is futureproofing a bit for when we do have android that is fully multithreaded, and apps that are as well.
There's also something you need to remember, XDA isn't really a big fraction of people using android devices and what not, but not every android user is on XDA. I also disagree with everyone maxing out their hardware, just running my Evo with a few of the aosp live wallpapers my evo runs terrible, and web browsing isn't the greatest either depending on the website.

Oh dude you should so post this one overclock.net, the beat down you would get would be hilarious. But anyway back one topic, as for phones, well for some people dual core is nice, for example me and my friends, when we head off to lecture, all we can do is browse the web on our phones, all of us, for some odd reason like to have at least 6-8 tabs open at the same time and for the phones we have (I have an iphone 3gs, theres a couple captivates, Droid Inc 2, and some others), they sometimes tend to slow down with all of the tabs open. Also when you open up numerous applications, you have to sometimes close out of some of them because the one that is open starts to slow down. Thats a couple reasons that dual core is nice, with massive multitasking. But with the computer part, where you say that no one needs a quad core processor, well think about it, there are a lot of people who want performance (not just XDA, theres overclock.net, techpowerup, EVGA, HardOCP, etc) and just random people who want fast computers for reasons such as video processing, gaming (this is probably a big reason), ridiculous multitasking (I fall into this category cause I have over 125 tabs open in chrome right now and I actually needed to upgrade to 8 gb's of ram because it was saying I was running out of ram with only 4), and some people that want just plain snappiness from their computer. So I would not say that a quad core processor is overkill for most people as the demographic I mentioned above does include a decent amount of people.
Oh and I forgot to mention watching Hi def videos, your average intel integrated graphics card cannot play a 1080p video without issues so thats why you might need a faster processor and a faster GPU to play those videos in an HTPC.
But yes for your average everyday joe, a simple nehalem based dual core would suffice for everyday tasks such as web browsing and such but it cannot do much else.

xsteven77x said:
I know i'm gonna get burned at the stake for this one, since this is a tech forum, but dual core is just overkill AT THE PRESENT MOMENT. It's like computers. They are all now dualcore, most come with almost 4 gigs of ram. What in the hell would 95% of the population need AT THE MOMENT with something more powerful than that? LIke a quadcore with 8 gigs? NOTHING. It's just a ploy to get more money.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Which is why netbooks took off for a while there (until people realized those were a bit too slow)
Our 1ghz phones can run everything just fine. This isn't like the early days of android where it always felt like more ram and raw power was needed. We have hit a plateau where the current cellphone landscape fits MOST peoples needs. Can i really be the only one who thinks that it's just unnecessary?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I completely disagree. The difference between dual and single core for mobile devices is *huge*. There is a *huge* difference between everything running "fine" and everything running "great". The biggest difference is for games and web browser, which most people absolutely care about. There is also the wide range of more powerful apps it enables, which for now is more important on the tablet, but that will come to phones as well.

Dual core is not overkill, for one, its future proofing your phone, most ppl buy the phones on contract and in a couple of months dual cores will be the standard for high end smartphones, second, it allows for better GPU performance which leads to better games and overall experience, there are many benefits to it, too many for me to list...

iamnottypingthis said:
I can easily go into why you're wrong, but I won't waste the calories. Other things besides just adding a core are done to get those gains. If more cores equaled more power savings, ULV cpus would be octo-core.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yea, it's better if you don't, because I dont think you have any substantial knowledge on the matter to go against the research and knowledge of all the computer engineers out there. The reason why it's not octo-cores yet is because it's called a BUSINESS. But I wont waste the calories in telling you why that is until you go and read up on "economy of scales."

It'll be interesting at least to see what develops. See if they'll start doing proper separate GPU Die's or if they'll dedicate GPU cores on the proc (i.e quad core chip with 2 CPU cores and 2 GPU cores).
Hope people don't start to get burnt when they begin maxing out/overclocking their cores.

Funny, if you stop developing you get nothing because you are satisfied with nothing.
Us at XDA are techies and you give us more core more ram more battery we will figure what to create with the new abilities. That is how progress is done.
As far as the masses, let marketing depts do their thing to them........we do not care, never did. As for me, I have a 12 core motherboard with 32 gigs of ram.etc and I jack it to 85% demand almost every day, and I am sure that there are very very few computers that have this capabilities.
The funny thing more innovation make more efficiencies my computer under a full load uses less than most of the gaming rigs out there and has 50% more muscle.
On the phone dual core allow one to create algorithms that will make the battery use way more efficient.
More cores more ram === win win win for everyone, but us in XDA and other forums like this it is just great great great for us.......... don't worry we will use what ever is created 110% and make it better.

If dual core in your Nokia 3210, yes it's overkilling, but if dual core in your cad workstation, it's been overkilled. All depends on the user, usage, and design of the device.

Actually it's an arueable question whether dual-core cpus are an overkill today, they have several advantages but most of those can be applied to netbooks and tablets rather than phones.
1. When there are several CPUs, multi-threaded applications can be really run concurrently (and basically, even if one application is performing, the scheduling overhead for multi-core system is lower and background tasks like gui/hardware drivers can be executed on a separate core).
2. Another use case (although this is a misuse and abuse of CPU anyway) is the use of multi-core systems for encoding/decoding media. It brings absolutely no advantages to the end user, but when the CPU is powerful enough to handle the media stream, one may use it instead of a proper DSP processor which Google will likely be doing for VP8/WebM
3. SMPs can be useful in tablets and netbooks - for example, tegra2 will outperform intel atom in most cases (first of all, it is dual-core. and secondly, it has a very powerful GPU). I am personally using debian on my tablet (in chroot though) and many people are using ubuntu on toshiba ac100 - arm SoCs are a fun to hack and give an incredible battery life. But this is IMHO only acceptable for geeks like us and I think dual-core (or x-whatever-core) ARM CPUs will be useful for consumers (hate this word but whatever) if some vendor releases a device which will run a full-fledged linux distro with LibreOffice, math packages like octave/maxima, development environments like kdevelop so that it can be used as an equal replacement of an x86 netbook.
As for the popular arguement about power consumption - surprisingly, but there is little correlation between the number of cores and power drain. Newer SoCs are more energy efficient because they have improvements in technical process (literally the length of wires inside the chip), more devices are integrated into one chip, more processing blocks can be put to sleep states. Even if you compare a qualcomm qsd8250 running at 1GHz with a GPU enabled, it will use less power than an old 520 MHz intel pxa270. Besides, as I have already mentioned, a multiprocessor system can execute tasks concurrently which means that the computation will take less time and the processor will spend more time in a power-saving state.
Basically multi-cores are a popular trend and is a good way to make consumers pay for new toys. For me personally the reasons to change a device have always been either the age of the device (when it literally began to fall apart) or the real improvements in hardware (I updated from Asus P525 to Xperia X1 because ever since I had my first pda I was frustrated by the tiny 32 or 64 mb ram and awful screens with large pixels that were really causing pain in eyes if one used them for long) but unfortunately the situation now is the same as it is in the desktop world - software quality is getting worse even faster than hardware improves. Hence we see crap like java and other managed code on PDAs and applications that require like 10 Mb ram to perform simple functions (which were like 100 Kb back in winmo days). I do admit that using more ram can allow to use more efficient algorithms (to reduce their computational complexity) and managed code allows for higher portability - but hey, we know that commercial software is not developed with the ideas of efficiency in mind - the only things corporations care about are writing the application as quick as possible and hide the source code.

lude219 said:
Yea, it's better if you don't, because I dont think you have any substantial knowledge on the matter to go against the research and knowledge of all the computer engineers out there. The reason why it's not octo-cores yet is because it's called a BUSINESS. But I wont waste the calories in telling you why that is until you go and read up on "economy of scales."
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That and yields for Nehalem 8 cores aren't so high. Bulldozer yields are working out okay so far, but then again it's not a real 8 core cpu...

[Q] Is a dual-core Windows Phone coming this year?

I thought one of the main disadvantages of WP7 has been inferior hardware.
For the original release Microsoft only supported the old snapdragon CPU with 1Ghz and Adreno 200.
Now for Mango, they did obviously update their support
for 8X55 and 7X30.
None of those are actually dualcore SoC's.
How are they going to keep up with Android if they continue offering inferior hardware specs? Or did I miss something?

I wish they do relase one which does. but they dont need dual core for the os so why burden the battery

"inferior hardware"
wow really?
dude, 1ghz, on a phone, thats everything else but inferior
it may be the truth that andoid is goin to need dual cores to give users a good looking and fluid experience, but windows phone is not.
no matter what handset you get, its working faaaast. no lags, no hickups, almost no loading times (and with mango its getting better)
so why would windows phone need it ?

However I would really like to have dual core phone,jut like to think that I have one of the fastest phones. But its true windows os is so smooth it wont make a perfermonce differnece, only thing that can help is using NAND memory instead of SD. Howver I want a better GPU so we can play faster games with good FPS and better quality, not saying that the quality is poor atm its great but it can always improve.

webwalk® said:
"inferior hardware"
wow really?
dude, 1ghz, on a phone, thats everything else but inferior
it may be the truth that andoid is goin to need dual cores to give users a good looking and fluid experience, but windows phone is not.
no matter what handset you get, its working faaaast. no lags, no hickups, almost no loading times (and with mango its getting better)
so why would windows phone need it ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree with you wholeheartedly, but the problem is it's not about "why would WP need it".
The average consumer, who is used to buying PCs based on their specs, will look at an Android phone and a WP and compare them. If they don't know the difference between the two OS then they'll be looking at the specs.
What do you think they're going to choose..?

Casey_boy said:
I agree with you wholeheartedly, but the problem is it's not about "why would WP need it".
The average consumer, who is used to buying PCs based on their specs, will look at an Android phone and a WP and compare them. If they don't know the difference between the two OS then they'll be looking at the specs.
What do you think they're going to choose..?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
to be frank, the average customer knows a superficial knowledge of cell phones...and many still market dumb phones as the approach for all user needs. Nokia has addressed the h/w issues ad nauseum, so it wouldn't surprise me if Nokia would be the first wp7 with a dual core. In fact, I would love to grab a Nokia phone...

i thought of your point too
its true the specs are taken in consideration
but currently im not aware of any device that stand out..
i think the average people would think
2x cores = 2x power needed = half the battery
battery is a major aspect
so still, why build a dual core if nothing is using it, besides the battery
like i said, android may be able to to make their os fast & fluid
but why cant they do it on the current specs
you simply dont need heavy processin unit on your mobile device, as long as you wont do heavy processin on the device. the phone wont need it, but the tablet does.
the average user is used to windows
the average user uses the phone for not much more then phone, text, surf, game.
last but not least, the price, i dont know much about dual core phones (do they already exists?) but double the cores, may raise the price by a lot.
this year we wont need no dual cores....

To be honest, I never really felt the need of such a powerful processor in a phone. What can you use it for apart from games with high graphics?
I'm sure opening office docs, web pages, utility apps, music...everything at once still won't slow down the processes. It's a phone guys. Not a desktop PC.
Many years ago, I had a 1.2 GHz CPU running windows XP, which in fact ran heavy programs without any lag. And today, our phones have 1GHz CPU running a phone OS and apps that hardly go above 50mb.
What's the need, seriously?

I don't care about dual core yet, but would like to see some higher end devices. All first gen releases were very generic.
Newer Gen CPU/GPU (dual core not necessary till things are coded for it)
High Quality Material/build
32GB or 64GB Internal ROM
Super AMOLED/next gen if avail
512MB RAM
Good Battery
Good Quality Optics (iPhone4 or better (like Nokia N8))
Thats all I want. Maybe a FFC just for ****s n' giggles, but thats not high on my priority list.

[email protected] said:
Now for Mango, they did obviously update their support
for 8X55 and 7X30.
None of those are actually dualcore SoC's.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well just like you said they have added support for new processors but neither of the new ones are dual core. We've heard rumors that ST-Ericsson will be supplying dual core chips for Nokia's Windows Phones but for now Qualcomm says they're the only WP7 manufacturer.
I don't doubt Windows Phone will see dual core support in the future. I have a feeling that Nokia won't be launching their Windows Phone alongside the others in September/October, but later in November or even December. That's when I think we'll see the first dual core Windows Phone. (Just speculation. No evidence for this.)

dtboos said:
I don't care about dual core yet, but would like to see some higher end devices. All first gen releases were very generic.
Newer Gen CPU/GPU (dual core not necessary till things are coded for it)
High Quality Material/build
32GB or 64GB Internal ROM
Super AMOLED/next gen if avail
512MB RAM
Good Battery
Good Quality Optics (iPhone4 or better (like Nokia N8))
Thats all I want. Maybe a FFC just for ****s n' giggles, but thats not high on my priority list.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well you just described Nokia N9 except for the screen ... only Sammy can put Super-AMOLED and the RAM is 768MB
PS. I though someone from Microsoft or Nokia I can't recall said that WP7 is already dual-core ready, so maybe it doesn't need new coding or I'm terribly wrong

kainy said:
Well you just described Nokia N9 except for the screen ... only Sammy can put Super-AMOLED and the RAM is 768MB
PS. I though someone from Microsoft or Nokia I can't recall said that WP7 is already dual-core ready, so maybe it doesn't need new coding or I'm terribly wrong
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Aye Why I know the phone I want is easily within reach. That would be more than powerful enough for the next couple years. This is also why I was excited about the Nokia deal because they have some excellent quality hardware & optics in some of their phones.

Android needs dual-core because the OS is so cluttered and filled with junk. WP7 phone have "inferior hardware" yet still run smoother than any Android phone would.

yea it should b strong

[Q] wp7 vs android - cpu question

I am an android user, running my galaxy s2, upgraded from the galaxy s, and love the system.
I was looking at the wp7, tho mostly for the wp8 version, like the idea of cross compatibility between phone, tablet and PC. This is the one thing I give apple credit for, but since I could never go for ios, Windows is the only other real option here.
The biggest thing I've noticed with the WP7 models out there, is from a hardware side, they pale in comparison to the android models; there are no wp7 devices that have the same kind of processing power that my S2 has, and certainly nothing compared to the HTC One X, or the S3.
Can anyone answer this question? I've looked around, haven't found anything that really seems to address this disparity in processing powers between these two system; especially when they are made by many of the same manufacturers as the competing android devices.
Is it an issue with the os? Android requires more power to deliver the same performance, or are the WP7 just under powered? Even the top of the line versions like the Lumina 900 has only a single core processor, not to mention only 512mb ram, this is half the memory and processing power of my S2, which is a year old already.....

Hello
doesnt htc titan have dualcore? lumia is overpriced dont get it