a5cent
New member
Re:
But the goal must be to make the average consumer want a Windows Phone, and be able to successfully use one. If we disagree on what the goal is, then we obviously won't agree on what the best approach is.
I'd also say that one category of devices performing like crap doesn't excuse another category of devices from performing like crap. It's exactly this type of thing that gives Windows its poor reputation. If the Windows brand is ever to become successful, and Windows Mobile along with it, then this sort of thing needs to stop. MS needs to take responsibility for the experience of each Windows based device, and not just blame the OEMs, who will sell anything to make a buck, while tarnishing the Windows brand in the process.
As already mentioned, there will always be a smaller category of devices just on the horizon, where the experience of running Win32 software locally falls on its face.
I don't understand what you're getting at here.You can't have Win32 desktop software without the Win32 desktop environment which hosts that type of software.
I agree. That's a totally flawed setup, which is why nobody is talking about that sort of setup. If you are regularly using TeamViewer on your phone's display, without a keyboard and mouse, and over a cellular network, then your problem is not that a remote desktop setup sucks, but that what you are doing sucks. Nobody is advocating that this sort of thing will ever work well, because you're not using the right tool for the task (I admit you might not have a choice, but that's another issue).
That's precisely why MS expects people using desktop software to do so using a large screen, which is why Continuum exists. MS also expects a keyboard and mouse to be available, and as I already mentioned, I don't think it's wrong to also expect WiFi to be available in that sort of environment. I think you're creating artificial restrictions that don't matter in practice, or at least shouldn't when used correctly.
I don't use TeamViewer, but I do use MS' remote desktop app, and I don't see the latency issues you mention. I wouldn't consider that proof of anything, but it's at least a start.
You're saying that MS should subsidize the service by selling overpriced phones. That might work if MS was Apple, but considering that 80% of the phones MS sells are the lowest-end models, I doubt that's viable. It's also unfair to those people who want a high-end phone but not the service.
Anyway, I think we could go back and forth like this forever. Like I said, it was intended as a starting point to develop your own ideas; not as a detailed technical description of how it would work, which is way beyond what we can reasonably discuss on a forum.
But the goal must be to make the average consumer want a Windows Phone, and be able to successfully use one. If we disagree on what the goal is, then we obviously won't agree on what the best approach is.
I'd also say that one category of devices performing like crap doesn't excuse another category of devices from performing like crap. It's exactly this type of thing that gives Windows its poor reputation. If the Windows brand is ever to become successful, and Windows Mobile along with it, then this sort of thing needs to stop. MS needs to take responsibility for the experience of each Windows based device, and not just blame the OEMs, who will sell anything to make a buck, while tarnishing the Windows brand in the process.
As already mentioned, there will always be a smaller category of devices just on the horizon, where the experience of running Win32 software locally falls on its face.
I don't understand what you're getting at here.You can't have Win32 desktop software without the Win32 desktop environment which hosts that type of software.
I agree. That's a totally flawed setup, which is why nobody is talking about that sort of setup. If you are regularly using TeamViewer on your phone's display, without a keyboard and mouse, and over a cellular network, then your problem is not that a remote desktop setup sucks, but that what you are doing sucks. Nobody is advocating that this sort of thing will ever work well, because you're not using the right tool for the task (I admit you might not have a choice, but that's another issue).
That's precisely why MS expects people using desktop software to do so using a large screen, which is why Continuum exists. MS also expects a keyboard and mouse to be available, and as I already mentioned, I don't think it's wrong to also expect WiFi to be available in that sort of environment. I think you're creating artificial restrictions that don't matter in practice, or at least shouldn't when used correctly.
I don't use TeamViewer, but I do use MS' remote desktop app, and I don't see the latency issues you mention. I wouldn't consider that proof of anything, but it's at least a start.
You're saying that MS should subsidize the service by selling overpriced phones. That might work if MS was Apple, but considering that 80% of the phones MS sells are the lowest-end models, I doubt that's viable. It's also unfair to those people who want a high-end phone but not the service.
Anyway, I think we could go back and forth like this forever. Like I said, it was intended as a starting point to develop your own ideas; not as a detailed technical description of how it would work, which is way beyond what we can reasonably discuss on a forum.
ackage the whole thing as a Windows Server feature so corporations could offer the same capabilities for their own software on their own networks for their private corporate user accounts.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram