The Lumia 1020...final death blow to the Point and Shoot?

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I think windows 8.x would be likely received MUCH better, if they would give the user the choice, especially with respect to a real computer (laptop/tower) to completely divorce the Metro UI from the system and allow you to go fully and ONLY into a classic desktop only paradigm.

I think that's largely the main gripe about it, trying to use a tablet UI on a desktop (even if it had touch, not many want to keep their arms up off the desk a lot, constantly touching the screen)....

I hear Win8 is pretty snappy and does good things with memory management, but if they don't allow classic computer users to turn Metro OFF, I think they're gonna lose business. People are NOT in a rush to migrate off Win7, businesses certainly aren't going to migrate, heck, they're just now coming off XP still in many cases.

I mean, look at Apple...they don't have the same OS on the tablet/phone that they have on the computer...iOS vs OSX...different beasts. Sure, they are converging to some extent, but not to the same extent MS tried with Win8.

My $0.02,

cayenne

I have Windows 8, and I agree, turning Metro off would work for me, I have no intention of buying a 27 or 30 inch touch screen, its impractical to hold up my hands in any event.


Right now, there is a simple solution, its called Start 8 and costs $5.00. It does away with the Metro screen, you boot right into the legacy screen, and the start menu is back!

A relative, who is a Microsoft manager also uses start 8 on all his PC's, it works very well.

On a tablet or cell phone, windows 8 is fine.

 

[jrista]

I have to concur that Win-8 sucks big time on a desktop. Metro has no business on a PC machine...

but on a tablet device or a phone, Its far better than my Iphone. The only reason I haven't jumped ship is that the more and more stuff you buy on itunes and the app store, the more it ties you down on the system. I couldn't switch if I wanted too with all my purchases.

It did, I agree. I think Windows 8.1 fixes most of that, though. It still isn't ideal, but a hell of a lot better than what it was. That's Microsoft's MO, though. It always takes a couple versions for quirks to iron out. Also, keep in mind, people utterly HATED Windows XP when it first hit (I remember reading scathing, hateful articles months and months after its initial release), and it was over a year before it became the most used and most loved Windows OS ever. I don't suspect things will be any different for Windows 8...and it is a hell of a lot better release than Windows Vista was (so the next major release should be a pretty significant improvement even over Win8.1).

Microsoft has a different release MO. Apple builds up an unquenchable fervor by not releasing ANY details about its releases until the day they unveil. (Well, they did....seems that may change under Cook, and I guess we'll see whether that is to the detriment of apple in the long term.) Microsoft has always approached releases with lots of software leaks, beta versions, community technology previews, etc. I think that can be good and bad, but these days, it seems it gives people too much time to play with new products before they are even released, encounter all the pre-release bugs, and decide they don't like the product. I would prefer Microsoft take the old Apple/Jobs approach. Don't release anything until its done, and when its released, make sure its solid, and make it a big party. They wouldn't lose people in the beta and CTP phase that way, they wouldn't get a bunch of pre-release bad press, and they would gain the benefit of people being antsy and excited to see and use the next greatest Microsoft thing. People just end up bored with the bugs before new Windows versions are actually released, the excitement is gone, so the release suffers, and it takes longer to build momentum.

Maybe the MS reorg will change things...but I don't really trust Ballmer to be anything other than a raging tool...so....

Windows 2000/NT - Good

Windows ME - Bad

Windows XP - Good

Windows Vista - Bad

Windows 7 - Good

Windows 8 - Bad

Windows 9 - ? Fill the blank.

I love M$ products but not when they revamp something the first time. The second attempt is usually perfect.

Yup, that's pretty much it! It would be nice if it became:

Windows 9: Good
Windows 10: Good
.
.
.
Windows N: Good

I get the feeling it will probably be more along the lines of :

Windows 8: So-So
Windows 8.1: Better
Windows 8.2: Even Better
Windows 8.5: Good
Windows 9: Better than Good
Windows 9.1: Even Better than Good

And if there are six to eight months between each release, then reaching Even Better than Good could take years. Assuming they don't end up continuing to flipflop.

I think windows 8.x would be likely received MUCH better, if they would give the user the choice, especially with respect to a real computer (laptop/tower) to completely divorce the Metro UI from the system and allow you to go fully and ONLY into a classic desktop only paradigm.

Why? Seriously, Why?

There are several reasons I don't see any reason to do that. First, if you don't want the new start menu, then you might as well stick with Windows 7. If you want that kind of desktop, then there is very little benefit to moving to Windows 8. Aside from doing away with a lot of the more fancy glass effects, which improve performance a smidge, and a slightly faster boot time...Windows 8 in desktop mode is nearly identical to Windows 7 in desktop mode. There isn't any compelling reason to move to Windows 8 if you loath the new Metro UI that much.

Second, Microsoft has long had the desire to move to a 2D immersive, interactive experience. They started with the "Office 2019" videos from a few years ago, and recently have a few new ones. For the latest, see the following link and click "Future Vision":

http://www.microsoft.com/office/labs/index.html

You can see the older videos here:

http://blogs.technet.com/b/next/archive/2011/10/25/looking-back-on-2019.aspx#.Ueb_kI3bPzw

There are some awesome concepts in those videos. The ubiquitous touch integration on all 2D surfaces, phones, tablets, and other devices that work in harmony, and allow instant transfer of data and responsibility, etc. I really want that. I can't wait until I can tap my phone on my glass coffee table in my living room, and see the days photos, my schedule, etc. all in a clean, pristine 2D touch interface. Windows 8 is the first real stepping stone I've seen towards this vision from Microsoft...and they first started releasing the Offie 2019 videos at least five or six years ago.

The way people complain about the new 2D UI...I think its just the fact that it is new and uncomfortable. I know too many people who have seen Corning's videos of ubiquitous touch computing, and said they would love such a thing...then say they hate Windows 8. Well, hey....pretty much ANY of the Office future concept UIs could be created on Windows 8 today. The parallax scrolling seen in the corporate agriculture apps could be done right now (actually, its already done on the Office Future Vision site I linked above, and it performs like fluid glass on IE10). The transfer of responsibility can already be done today with XBox Glass, which allows you to either remotely control an XBox, or transfer responsibility for playback of music or video from a tablet to a TV. And all people can do is complain about it. Sorry, but that just boggles my mind.

It's just a matter of time before better apps find their way into the Windows Store. Some already are...some of the fitness apps are already getting quite good (i.e. FitBit), and offer very advanced interactive UIs. I think it is also just a matter of time before the kind of advanced manufacturing and agriculture apps find their way into real-world corporations. They just need people to have the vision for them, and to develop them. I don't know when ubiquitous touch computing finds its way into tabletops, windows, walls, etc., but I can't wait.

I think that's largely the main gripe about it, trying to use a tablet UI on a desktop (even if it had touch, not many want to keep their arms up off the desk a lot, constantly touching the screen)....

I agree a bit here, touch shouldn't be the primary mode of interaction for a desktop. I think Windows 8.1 has already fixed a lot of that, and even that being said, Windows 8 started out with very good mouse and keyboard support. You never HAD to use touch for the start screen...it has always supported mouse and keyboard. For that matter, it also has great support for a remote control...I use Windows 8 on my Media PC, and use the remote to move around the tiles and run programs. The remote works well in most Microsoft Win8 apps as well...for example, I just hit the left or right buttons to scroll through news articles, up and down to scroll through emails, etc.

I think the complaints about the new start screen not working on a desktop are overblown. I also think that Microsoft has done a poor job educating new users how easy it is to use the mouse to control the new UI. Closing an app, for example, often baffles people. It is actually a simple gesture...point to top of screen, click and hold, drag to bottom. It's a simple, fluid motion once you know it exists...most people don't...and that's the real problem. It's one of Microsofts fundamental problems...they have a severe gap in helping their users KNOW how to use their OS.

I hear Win8 is pretty snappy and does good things with memory management, but if they don't allow classic computer users to turn Metro OFF, I think they're gonna lose business. People are NOT in a rush to migrate off Win7, businesses certainly aren't going to migrate, heck, they're just now coming off XP still in many cases.

In Windows 8.1, you can't entirely decouple yourself from Metro, but you can get pretty close. You can boot directly into the classic desktop now, and do everything you used to do...with the exception that the restored start button still brings up the start screen, rather than the classic start menu. There are a myriad of third-party tools (really just registry hacks) that restore the classic start menu. You can do that, if that's what you want...but again, Why? You might as well stick with Windows 7 until it EOLs if that's really how you feel. If you are entirely uninterested in moving into a new era of computing, it isn't like Microsoft is holding a gun to your head.

I mean, look at Apple...they don't have the same OS on the tablet/phone that they have on the computer...iOS vs OSX...different beasts. Sure, they are converging to some extent, but not to the same extent MS tried with Win8.

My $0.02,

cayenne

I guess I think that the dual-platform nature of Windows 8 is its strength against iOS. I think that is how most people feel as well. Windows RT is largely a flop. People don't WANT just Windows Metro, even just on a tablet. People, including myself, explicitly held out for Surface Pro, because we WANT that dual nature. I really love it. I waited years for the ability to run Lightroom on a tablet out in the middle of nowhere Colorado, where I can tether my DSLR to my fully mobile, fully featured PC that neatly rests in the palms of my hands, and effectively get a large screen view camera out of a lowly Canon 7D. I didn't need any extra accessories, custom cables, or anything like that to get it working, either. Personally, I think that is a highly valuable thing. That's something no other company has offered me yet, not even Apple.

 

[magic koala]

I actually like my HTC Windows Phone. The interface is consistent and simple and it is much easier to use than an Android phone (try giving an Android phone to somebody 60+ and over, I feel the Android phones are more for the tech-customizable-oriented people). I like the simplicity of iPhones as well but I think the Windows phones are quite easy to use. My HTC phone is also a lot thinner, lighter than the iPhone, and the LCD is fantastic. Battery life, admittedly, is so-so but I've just learned to have a lot of USB chargers laying around. Also their speech recognition still needs some work (as compared to Android - man, it is good).

As far as the camera capabilities, I think most people will admit that iPhone cameras can produce very good pics and even the camera in my HTC phone can produce great colors and picture quality - good enough for me to point on a monitor and ask people which one was taken by a DSLR and which one by phone (obviously we're talking outdoor pics). Sometimes I even use my phone as a lighting source when I want to take pics inside a dimly lit place. I just turn on the flashlight app, get a white paper napkin for diffusion and there you go.

I've always wondered why we don't have phones with the thickness of a Canon S95 and a proper zoom lens. I'd put that in a small case on my belt. It'd just be a multi-purpose device. Sorta like a p&s but you can have it upgraded to be a phone - linked to your regular cellular carrier.

Not sure why we would pick one brand over another - most cellphone makers wouldn't be in biz if they didn't perform to a minimum. Most of us switch cellphones as often as 6 months to one year so I just pick the model that has the right OS, price point and features.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I have to concur that Win-8 sucks big time on a desktop. Metro has no business on a PC machine...

but on a tablet device or a phone, Its far better than my Iphone. The only reason I haven't jumped ship is that the more and more stuff you buy on itunes and the app store, the more it ties you down on the system. I couldn't switch if I wanted too with all my purchases.

It did, I agree. I think Windows 8.1 fixes most of that, though. It still isn't ideal, but a hell of a lot better than what it was. That's Microsoft's MO, though. It always takes a couple versions for quirks to iron out. Also, keep in mind, people utterly HATED Windows XP when it first hit (I remember reading scathing, hateful articles months and months after its initial release), and it was over a year before it became the most used and most loved Windows OS ever. I don't suspect things will be any different for Windows 8...and it is a hell of a lot better release than Windows Vista was (so the next major release should be a pretty significant improvement even over Win8.1).

Microsoft has a different release MO. Apple builds up an unquenchable fervor by not releasing ANY details about its releases until the day they unveil. (Well, they did....seems that may change under Cook, and I guess we'll see whether that is to the detriment of apple in the long term.) Microsoft has always approached releases with lots of software leaks, beta versions, community technology previews, etc. I think that can be good and bad, but these days, it seems it gives people too much time to play with new products before they are even released, encounter all the pre-release bugs, and decide they don't like the product. I would prefer Microsoft take the old Apple/Jobs approach. Don't release anything until its done, and when its released, make sure its solid, and make it a big party. They wouldn't lose people in the beta and CTP phase that way, they wouldn't get a bunch of pre-release bad press, and they would gain the benefit of people being antsy and excited to see and use the next greatest Microsoft thing. People just end up bored with the bugs before new Windows versions are actually released, the excitement is gone, so the release suffers, and it takes longer to build momentum.

Maybe the MS reorg will change things...but I don't really trust Ballmer to be anything other than a raging tool...so....

Windows 2000/NT - Good

Windows ME - Bad

Windows XP - Good

Windows Vista - Bad

Windows 7 - Good

Windows 8 - Bad

Windows 9 - ? Fill the blank.

I love M$ products but not when they revamp something the first time. The second attempt is usually perfect.

Actually they are all sort of bad. It's a shame stuff like AmigaOS and such are forgotten and stuff like Windows hangs around.

Anyway, the above list is sort of accurate, but they also never did anything as radically silly as trying to think that a tablet interface is ideal for desktop usage. Like we really want to smear greasy fingers all over photo-editing monitors or hold arms up and lean up to reach 24-36" monitors (or worse if you hook it to an HDTV too).

 

[jrista]

I actually like my HTC Windows Phone. The interface is consistent and simple and it is much easier to use than an Android phone (try giving an Android phone to somebody 60+ and over, I feel the Android phones are more for the tech-customizable-oriented people). I like the simplicity of iPhones as well but I think the Windows phones are quite easy to use. My HTC phone is also a lot thinner, lighter than the iPhone, and the LCD is fantastic. Battery life, admittedly, is so-so but I've just learned to have a lot of USB chargers laying around. Also their speech recognition still needs some work (as compared to Android - man, it is good).

As far as the camera capabilities, I think most people will admit that iPhone cameras can produce very good pics and even the camera in my HTC phone can produce great colors and picture quality - good enough for me to point on a monitor and ask people which one was taken by a DSLR and which one by phone (obviously we're talking outdoor pics). Sometimes I even use my phone as a lighting source when I want to take pics inside a dimly lit place. I just turn on the flashlight app, get a white paper napkin for diffusion and there you go.

I've always wondered why we don't have phones with the thickness of a Canon S95 and a proper zoom lens. I'd put that in a small case on my belt. It'd just be a multi-purpose device. Sorta like a p&s but you can have it upgraded to be a phone - linked to your regular cellular carrier.

Not sure why we would pick one brand over another - most cellphone makers wouldn't be in biz if they didn't perform to a minimum. Most of us switch cellphones as often as 6 months to one year so I just pick the model that has the right OS, price point and features.

Speech recognition in Windows Phone 8 is phenomenal. It isn't as interactive as Siri, but it is flawless, and even works in noisy environments now. If you haven't tried it, its worth messing with a Windows Phone 8 device in a store somewhere...the voice control, voice texting, etc. is pretty nice.

 

[RLPhoto]

Actually they are all sort of bad.

That's a bold statement.

 

[jrista]

Actually they are all sort of bad. It's a shame stuff like AmigaOS and such are forgotten and stuff like Windows hangs around.

Anyway, the above list is sort of accurate, but they also never did anything as radically silly as trying to think that a tablet interface is ideal for desktop usage. Like we really want to smear greasy fingers all over photo-editing monitors or hold arms up and lean up to reach 24-36" monitors (or worse if you hook it to an HDTV too).

I'm curious if the assumption, that you MUST use touch to use the start screen, is a common one. The start screen is not inherently touch only. You can use Windows 8 without touch, and it works just fine. There is no reason to touch a screen in order to be capable of using the new start screen. If that is what most people think, then I guess it is no wonder that people aren't buying Windows 8.

I'd also point out that it works even better on an HDTV. I have Win8.1 on my Media PC, attached to a 46" Samsung. I use the standard Media PC remote to control it, along with a companion Logitech T650 touchpad for supporting any of the gestures (which, I'd add, is fully compatible with any desktop, allowing you to take advantage of the touch interaction without needing to ever touch a screen, if that kind of think irks you.)

 

[magic koala]

I actually like my HTC Windows Phone. The interface is consistent and simple and it is much easier to use than an Android phone (try giving an Android phone to somebody 60+ and over, I feel the Android phones are more for the tech-customizable-oriented people). I like the simplicity of iPhones as well but I think the Windows phones are quite easy to use. My HTC phone is also a lot thinner, lighter than the iPhone, and the LCD is fantastic. Battery life, admittedly, is so-so but I've just learned to have a lot of USB chargers laying around. Also their speech recognition still needs some work (as compared to Android - man, it is good).

As far as the camera capabilities, I think most people will admit that iPhone cameras can produce very good pics and even the camera in my HTC phone can produce great colors and picture quality - good enough for me to point on a monitor and ask people which one was taken by a DSLR and which one by phone (obviously we're talking outdoor pics). Sometimes I even use my phone as a lighting source when I want to take pics inside a dimly lit place. I just turn on the flashlight app, get a white paper napkin for diffusion and there you go.

I've always wondered why we don't have phones with the thickness of a Canon S95 and a proper zoom lens. I'd put that in a small case on my belt. It'd just be a multi-purpose device. Sorta like a p&s but you can have it upgraded to be a phone - linked to your regular cellular carrier.

Not sure why we would pick one brand over another - most cellphone makers wouldn't be in biz if they didn't perform to a minimum. Most of us switch cellphones as often as 6 months to one year so I just pick the model that has the right OS, price point and features.

Speech recognition in Windows Phone 8 is phenomenal. It isn't as interactive as Siri, but it is flawless, and even works in noisy environments now. If you haven't tried it, its worth messing with a Windows Phone 8 device in a store somewhere...the voice control, voice texting, etc. is pretty nice.

I do like the speech recognition but it could be better. For example, I was in the post office with two friends - one with Android and one with iPhone. I had the windows phone. My friend was getting stamps for xmas cards so for fun, we all pulled out our phones and asked our phones: how much is xmas card postage? The android and iphone responded with some dollar value: 40 or 50 cents or something like that. My phoen's answer: Kardashian.

But for the most part, it does work very well.

 

[cayenne]

Actually they are all sort of bad. It's a shame stuff like AmigaOS and such are forgotten and stuff like Windows hangs around.

Anyway, the above list is sort of accurate, but they also never did anything as radically silly as trying to think that a tablet interface is ideal for desktop usage. Like we really want to smear greasy fingers all over photo-editing monitors or hold arms up and lean up to reach 24-36" monitors (or worse if you hook it to an HDTV too).

I'm curious if the assumption, that you MUST use touch to use the start screen, is a common one. The start screen is not inherently touch only. You can use Windows 8 without touch, and it works just fine. There is no reason to touch a screen in order to be capable of using the new start screen. If that is what most people think, then I guess it is no wonder that people aren't buying Windows 8.

I'd also point out that it works even better on an HDTV. I have Win8.1 on my Media PC, attached to a 46" Samsung. I use the standard Media PC remote to control it, along with a companion Logitech T650 touchpad for supporting any of the gestures (which, I'd add, is fully compatible with any desktop, allowing you to take advantage of the touch interaction without needing to ever touch a screen, if that kind of think irks you.)

I think the gripe is, like with my other statements....that they didn't keep touch on TOUCH products (phones, tablets, etc)....they tried forcing the same paradigm on real computers too, ones people use a mouse and keyboard with, especially for work/business where a tablet isn't going to cut it.

Metro should have a 100% on/off switch setting for desktops and laptops that don't have or need touch...THAT alone would have made Win8 more successful.

I'm glad you like it...I do computer work for a living (contract consultant specializing in Oracle database admin), and I can tell you anecdotally (sp?) from anyone I work with in the industry, not a single one likes Win8, and if they have purchased a new computer lately that came with Win8, they quickly either put Win7 or Linux on it.

Some have played with it on tablets, and some say its ok, I don't see much enthusiasm for it one way or the other.

But in business, which *is* the majority of MS's business, you're not going to see much further adoption past the Win7 version, until they can fully divorce metro from the workspace....at a minumum, the cost of retraining people for this adds a lot to the bottom line (the reason why Linux is in the server room, and not the desktop for many businesses). It just doesn't fit into the business world of workers....especially if the business is hard core IT.

LOL..hell, many in the business world still don't like the ribbon interface (self included), and that has been out for awhile....but it works.



But, that's another thread...

C

 

[jrista]

Actually they are all sort of bad. It's a shame stuff like AmigaOS and such are forgotten and stuff like Windows hangs around.

Anyway, the above list is sort of accurate, but they also never did anything as radically silly as trying to think that a tablet interface is ideal for desktop usage. Like we really want to smear greasy fingers all over photo-editing monitors or hold arms up and lean up to reach 24-36" monitors (or worse if you hook it to an HDTV too).

I'm curious if the assumption, that you MUST use touch to use the start screen, is a common one. The start screen is not inherently touch only. You can use Windows 8 without touch, and it works just fine. There is no reason to touch a screen in order to be capable of using the new start screen. If that is what most people think, then I guess it is no wonder that people aren't buying Windows 8.

I'd also point out that it works even better on an HDTV. I have Win8.1 on my Media PC, attached to a 46" Samsung. I use the standard Media PC remote to control it, along with a companion Logitech T650 touchpad for supporting any of the gestures (which, I'd add, is fully compatible with any desktop, allowing you to take advantage of the touch interaction without needing to ever touch a screen, if that kind of think irks you.)

I think the gripe is, like with my other statements....that they didn't keep touch on TOUCH products (phones, tablets, etc)....they tried forcing the same paradigm on real computers too, ones people use a mouse and keyboard with, especially for work/business where a tablet isn't going to cut it.

Metro should have a 100% on/off switch setting for desktops and laptops that don't have or need touch...THAT alone would have made Win8 more successful.

I'm glad you like it...I do computer work for a living (contract consultant specializing in Oracle database admin), and I can tell you anecdotally (sp?) from anyone I work with in the industry, not a single one likes Win8, and if they have purchased a new computer lately that came with Win8, they quickly either put Win7 or Linux on it.

Some have played with it on tablets, and some say its ok, I don't see much enthusiasm for it one way or the other.

But in business, which *is* the majority of MS's business, you're not going to see much further adoption past the Win7 version, until they can fully divorce metro from the workspace....at a minumum, the cost of retraining people for this adds a lot to the bottom line (the reason why Linux is in the server room, and not the desktop for many businesses). It just doesn't fit into the business world of workers....especially if the business is hard core IT.

LOL..hell, many in the business world still don't like the ribbon interface (self included), and that has been out for awhile....but it works.



But, that's another thread...

C

Well, just a note...I am in the same industry. I design software architecture and develop enterprise level software. In my experience, a blanket statement that "not a single one" is unrealistic. I know a lot of people who moved to Windows 8 the day it was available at a company of over 40,000 people. I also know some people who reverted to Windows 7. Some of them stuck with Win7, some ended upgrading again to Win8.1. The rest, well, they just stick with their iPad.

I also think the notion that much "training" is really needed is grasping at straws. The company I work for now has already started rolling out Win8. Our customers companies are shifting quickly to Win8 as well, the majority from WinXP (skipping right past Win7). Assuming one never uses a metro app, Windows 8 is little different than any prior version of Windows since 95. The only real "training" that needs to be done is on the new start screen...and it really only takes the average person about five minutes to figure that one out. See a tile, click a tile. (Oh, sorry, it only really takes about 2 seconds!)

There are also additional enterprise features in Windows 8.1 that allow it to be just as fully controlled as any other version of windows by a central admin team. Hell, for certain kinds of use cases, it is possible to lock down a single metro app in "kiosk" mode...which could be useful to maintain a certain app for say reception, a different one for sales, a third for customer support, etc. Give it a couple more minor versions, and I see plenty of enterprise-ready functionality filtering into Windows 8. Again, this is the first release. Microsoft hasn't moved away from their flip-flop yet, so I suspect companies are still waiting for Windows 9 before they upgrade from Windows 7....regardless of the facts.

 

[northbyten]

Windows 8.1 is better than Win 8 and I wish people could use it just to see that it's a far better product.

WP8 works perfectly for me and it's your choice whether you like WP8 or not, no need to push your opinion on others.

 

[danski0224]

I would really like to get the Lumia 1020, but in the USA the only carrier option right now is AT&T.

No thanks. Not really a smart move on Nokia's part if they want to sell devices.

I haven't really dug deeply into getting an unlocked version, but so far I haven't found anything definitive that indicates that all features on a US spec unlocked phone (especially LTE) would work on T-Mobile.

I have not been impressed with the iPhones.

The latest top Android offerings from HTC and Samsung both seem to have their issues.

The last new release handset I purchased, the HTC Amaze, burned me with poor bluetooth performance. T-Mobile never corrected the problem and I eventually had to get rid of the phone. I really liked the camera on that phone.

I've been using a Sensation for almost 2 years and right now I'm considering Cyanogen now that there is a stable release and all features work.

I tried Windows phones in the past and still own a HD2, but the MS support there was lacking.

T-Mobile has eliminated the "subsidized" phone pricing so you pay full retail for a new phone. Granted, it is over time and the plan pricing reduction seems to work out to be the same. Even so, these current model smartphones clock in at ~$500 a pop, plus ~$100 a month to use. It's getting to be a bit much and I wish they were more durable.

 

[cayenne]

...... no need to push your opinion on others.

Isn't that kind of a necessary part of having a conversation?

If no opinions are "pushed"....this forum is gonna get mighty quiet.