Windows Phone



  • I'm updating a Windows Phone and Zune (like iTunes for Windows Phone) has a built-in updater to do this. After starting the procedure a note says

    "Because updates are cumulative, when you install the latest update, you'll also get all the previous updates we've released if your phone doesn't have them already."

    Fine, that's smart. No point to apply many updates one after another, it would take time.
    Except that IT ACTUALLY JUST DID THAT, it applied 5 updates, each time rebooting the phone to connect to the bootloader. meh.

    Then, while waiting i clicked the "more info" link to see if there was something special to see in an update. And i get here:
    http://www.windowsphone.com/en-us/how-to/wp7/basics/update-history

    So, it turns out that "Windows Phone 7.8" is just a commercial name, the actual version is 7.10.something because apparently that version did already exist so they went on. WTF!



  • You should get an iPhone instead, that way you would never have to do a software update since they release a new model every 5 minutes and people with an older model are shunned from cool coffee shops.



  • @Ronald said:

    You should get an iPhone instead, that way you would never have to do a software update since they release a new model every 5 minutes and people with an older model are shunned from cool coffee shops.

    Get a Blackberry instead. They're so old-fashioned they'll survive an EMP blast.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @Ronald said:
    You should get an iPhone instead, that way you would never have to do a software update since they release a new model every 5 minutes and people with an older model are shunned from cool coffee shops.

    Get a Blackberry instead. They're so old-fashioned they'll survive work just the same after an EMP blast.

    FTFY.


    Also I refuse to use a phone that is lower than #3 in the market (yes, Windows Phone is now more popular than Blackberry - strange new world!).



  • Hey, I have a Symbian phone and it's actually not that bad.

    ..

    ..

    ..

    Lol just kidding it's a pice of shit.



  •  @Microsoft said:

    New phones with OS version 7.0.7389.0 include all of the features and
    improvements that are included in OS version 7.0.7390.0.

    But why ???

    And I do like my Windows phone

    - No instant notifications from Whatsapp (you have to look manually most of the time)

    - No IMAP-Idle so it just looks for mail every two hours

    - Readable 2pt font-size in month view

    - Exactly one appointment on the calendar widget



  • @hallo.amt said:

     @Microsoft said:

    New phones with OS version 7.0.7389.0 include all of the features and
    improvements that are included in OS version 7.0.7390.0.

    But why ???


    What the hell?
    @Microsoft said:
    Also known as the "NoDo" update

    Is it called the NoDo update because it does nothing, since the previous release includes all of its features and improvements?



  • @aihtdikh said:

    @hallo.amt said:

     @Microsoft said:

    New phones with OS version 7.0.7389.0 include all of the features and
    improvements that are included in OS version 7.0.7390.0.

    But why ???


    What the hell?
    @Microsoft said:
    Also known as the "NoDo" update

    Is it called the NoDo update because it does nothing, since the previous release includes all of its features and improvements?

    Maybe it's like the second of these three fictional Valve updates:

    • Optimized a network compression function
    • Fixed a server crash introduced by the previous update
    • Fixed a server crash introduced while fixing the server crash from two updates ago


  • @aihtdikh said:

    Is it called the NoDo update because it does nothing, since the previous release includes all of its features and improvements?

    It was a play on Android's Donut update, it was short for No Donut.



  • @Douglasac said:

    @aihtdikh said:
    Is it called the NoDo update because it does nothing, since the previous release includes all of its features and improvements?

    It was a play on Android's Donut update, it was short for No Donut.

    Haha! Hilarious mobile phone operating system humor!!!



  • I say get a feature phone with a physical keyboard. Smartphones are overrated crap, especially once they stopped making them with keyboards.

    My current phone is a Samsung Sidekick 4G permanently crippled with a hack of Android 2.1. It's practically a feature phone already (as is anything with Android 2), especially as I got it for $25. I don't ever do anything with it besides phone calls and texting.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Haha! Hilarious mobile phone operating system humor!!!

    Yes, you're right, it was a terrible name and I'm glad they've stuck with sensible code names since then.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @Douglasac said:
    @aihtdikh said:
    Is it called the NoDo update because it does nothing, since the previous release includes all of its features and improvements?

    It was a play on Android's Donut update, it was short for No Donut.

    Haha! Hilarious mobile phone operating system humor!!!


    Huh. Cause yeah, that's, like, totally a joke. Good one MS. Nearly as funny as WinME.



  •  Great, my phone alsowanted an update, now I have ten backups.That's the M$ definition of cumulative


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Zmaster said:

    So, it turns out that "Windows Phone 7.8" is just a commercial name, the actual version is 7.10.something because apparently that version did already exist so they went on. WTF!
     

     

    Check this out:

    1) Windows 1
    2) Windows 2
    3) Windows 3
    4) Windows 95
    5) Windows 98
    6) Windows Me
    7) Windows XP (NT v5.x)
    8) Windows Vista (NT v6.0)
    9) Windows 7 (NT v6.1)
    10) Windows 8 (NT v6.2)
    11) Windows 8.1 (announced last week, NT v6.3)

    Proof positive Microsoft has NO GIVEASHIT about whether their trade names make any sense. 



  • Can't you just get a phone plugin card for your laptop?



  • @Weng said:

    @Zmaster said:

    So, it turns out that "Windows Phone 7.8" is just a commercial name, the actual version is 7.10.something because apparently that version did already exist so they went on. WTF!
     

     

    Check this out:

    1) Windows 1
    2) Windows 2
    3) Windows 3
    4) Windows 95
    5) Windows 98
    6) Windows Me
    7) Windows XP (NT v5.x)
    8) Windows Vista (NT v6.0)
    9) Windows 7 (NT v6.1)
    10) Windows 8 (NT v6.2)
    11) Windows 8.1 (announced last week, NT v6.3)

    Proof positive Microsoft has NO GIVEASHIT about whether their trade names make any sense. 

    Off the top of my head, I can tell you forgot Windows 2000 and Windows 3.11.

    Also, I think the first two versions of Word were 2.0 and 6.0, but I may be wrong. Ok, actually let me check. Ah, according to Wikipedia there were versions 1.0, 1.1 and 1.1a before those.



  • @Weng said:

    @Zmaster said:

    So, it turns out that "Windows Phone 7.8" is just a commercial name, the actual version is 7.10.something because apparently that version did already exist so they went on. WTF!
     

     

    Check this out:

    Version numbers are inside the Windows NT series of OSes.

    1) Windows NT 3.1

    2) Windows NT 3.51

    3) Windows NT 4

    4) Windows 2000

    @Weng said:


    5) Windows XP (NT v5.x)
    6) Windows Vista (NT v6.0)
    7) Windows 7 (NT v6.1)
    8) Windows 8 (NT v6.2)
    9) Windows 8.1 (announced last week, NT v6.3)

    Proof positive Microsoft has NO GIVEASHIT about whether their trade names make any sense. 

     

     FTFY.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @drurowin said:

    Version numbers are inside the Windows NT series of OSes.

    1) Windows NT 3.1

    2) Windows NT 3.51

    3) Windows NT 4

    4) Windows 2000

    @Weng said:


    5) Windows XP (NT v5.x)
    6) Windows Vista (NT v6.0)
    7) Windows 7 (NT v6.1)
    8) Windows 8 (NT v6.2)
    9) Windows 8.1 (announced last week, NT v6.3)

    NT 3.5 was marketed as a distinct product, which throws that list into off-by-one.

     



  • Windows 7 would have made more sense if Microsoft had stuck with their original plan of making it Windows NT 7.0.

    In fact, superimposing NT and DOS-based Windows versions gives us this:

    #DOS-basedNT
    1Windows 1.0
    2Windows 2.0
    3Windows 3.0
    Windows 3.1
    Windows NT 3.x
    4Windows 95
    Windows 98
    Windows NT 4.0
    5Windows MEWindows 2000
    Windows XP
    6Windows Vista
    Windows 7
    7Windows 8
    Windows 8.1

    So Windows 8 should have really been Windows 7. 7 was made a distinct release from Vista for marketting reasons. I don't understand why they didn't do the same thing with 8.1...


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    GenerationName
    1iPhone
    2iPhone 3G
    3iPhone 3GS
    4iPhone 4
    5iPhone 4S
    6iPhone 5


  • @MiffTheFox said:

    Windows 7 would have made more sense if Microsoft had stuck with their original plan of making it Windows NT 7.0.

    In fact, superimposing NT and DOS-based Windows versions gives us this:

    #DOS-basedNT
    1Windows 1.0
    2Windows 2.0
    3Windows 3.0
    Windows 3.1
    Windows NT 3.x
    4Windows 95
    Windows 98
    Windows NT 4.0
    5Windows MEWindows 2000
    Windows XP
    6Windows Vista
    Windows 7
    7Windows 8
    Windows 8.1

    So Windows 8 should have really been Windows 7. 7 was made a distinct release from Vista for marketting reasons. I don't understand why they didn't do the same thing with 8.1...

    Hey you used a table tag in your comment. For reasons unknown this makes you a bad person according to most web designers (but for another mysterious reason it's ok to use display:table-cell in a div).


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @ObviousTroll said:

    Hey you used a table tag in your comment. For reasons unknown this makes you a bad person according to most web designers

    Wrongo. Tables are perfectly acceptable for tabular content. They are unacceptable to use for site layout. Display: table-cell is fine because the document maintains its correct semantic content (though maybe something like <article> would be better than a div), and the CSS is instructing the user agent how to lay out the content, as W3c intended.



  • @joe.edwards said:

    Filed under: I tried to capitalize W3c like God but I don't think it came out clearly.

    That's because you used a capital three.



  • @joe.edwards said:

    @ObviousTroll said:
    Hey you used a table tag in your comment. For reasons unknown this makes you a bad person according to most web designers

    Wrongo. Tables are perfectly acceptable for tabular content. They are unacceptable to use for site layout. Display: table-cell is fine because the document maintains its correct semantic content (though maybe something like <article> would be better than a div), and the CSS is instructing the user agent how to lay out the content, as W3c intended.

    Q: how can you tell who is a web designer in a room filled with thousands of people?

    A: just bring up "table vs div" and see who replies with words like "unacceptable" or "semantic content"



    Tables are hugely convenient to quickly put together a layout and I have yet to see a compelling argument against that other than web designer mental masturbation concepts like "semantic content".




    I think designers are getting pissy because websites used to be a work of art. Now the web is mostly half-barfed chunks of wordpress templates mangled by broken javascript and has a shelf-life shorter than Mcdonalds fries.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @Ronald said:

    Tables are hugely convenient to quickly put together a layout and I have yet to see a compelling argument against that other than web designer mental masturbation concepts like "semantic content".

    Hey, concepts like that have made me independently wealthy.



  • @Ronald said:

    Tables are hugely convenient to quickly put together a layout and I have yet to see a compelling argument against that other than web designer mental masturbation concepts like "semantic content".

    HTML is not a very good way to put together a layout period, it's meant for typesetting non-paged documents. Anything actually designed for laying out UI (WinForms, XAML, GTK+, XUL, etc) is either predominately table-based or has table-based layout as a supported option.



  • @joe.edwards said:

    @Ronald said:
    Tables are hugely convenient to quickly put together a layout and I have yet to see a compelling argument against that other than web designer mental masturbation concepts like "semantic content".

    Hey, concepts like that have made me independently wealthy.

    Odds are that if you are actually independently wealthy (which I doubt) it was not because of those concepts but rather because of your success in using them to dazzle clueless people in forking over money for overpriced stuff.



    While this is far less noble than defending the purest W3c ideology against evil pragmatists, there is no shame in making money that way. I know a guy who got rich selling timeshare and we have a good laugh everytime we talk about suckers.



  • @Ronald said:

    Now the web mostly ... has a shelf-life shorter than Mcdonalds fries.

    That probably means the opposite of what you think it does.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @Ronald said:

    Odds are that if you are actually independently wealthy (which I doubt)

    Maybe stretched the truth. I make a 6 figure salary at my day job, and bill hourly clients higher than that. If I had trouble finding work (which hasn't happened in my career so far), it might be a year before my standard of living started to degrade.

    I do make money off these things, but I don't consider myself a swindler because I'm providing exactly what my clients are asking for; that is, they generally seek me out, I don't walk up to their door selling it.

    It's not entirely worthless either. They do see measurable improvements in search engine result placement, page load times and bandwidth (crap markup tends to be bulky), and accessibility.



  • @Ben L. said:

    @Ronald said:
    Now the web mostly ... has a shelf-life shorter than Mcdonalds fries.

    That probably means the opposite of what you think it does.

    You are probably right but what I meant is this.



  • Well, if you were blind for example, I'm sure you'd be damn thankful that sites were designed with semantic content, so you could actually get a hint of what's in them.

    Similarly for if you ever want to use virtually any script or tool that has to work with all websites, such as readability.

     

    However, it's true that they should have made it easier to do table-like layouts. The first rule of standards design is: the easy way to do it must be the good way to do it.



  • @spamcourt said:

    Well, if you were blind for example, I'm sure you'd be damn thankful that sites were designed with semantic content, so you could actually get a hint of what's in them.

    Similarly for if you ever want to use virtually any script or tool that has to work with all websites, such as readability.

     

    However, it's true that they should have made it easier to do table-like layouts. The first rule of standards design is: the easy way to do it must be the good way to do it.

    Then again one can say that blind people should stay the fuck off the Internet, just like those who can't speak English. But I'm not saying that.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @spamcourt said:

    The first rule of standards design is: the easy way to do it must be the good way to do it.

    It's been my experience that doing it the right way actually is easier in terms of how long it takes to develop and how maintainable it is, but it is definitely harder to learn (I think mostly because too many websites preach bad methodology). If you've got all your styles tied in with your markup and you need to do a site-wide redesign on a site with thousands of pages/dozens-to-hundreds of unique templates, you've got a major undertaking on your hands; with proper separation of content and CSS, it takes an order of magnitude less effort.

    Something similar recently came up with our website, a single developer got it up in a single release cycle (weekly, with time for QA).


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.