reply to discussion

Post a reply to the thread: iPhone's "Safari" comes to Windows Mobile.. (yawn)

Your Message

If you are already a member Click here to log in
 
  • :)
  • :heart:
  • :(
  • ;)
  • :p
  • :cool:
  • :rolleyes:
  • :ah:
  • :evil:
  • :flamemad:
  • :sad:
  • :laugh:
  • :D
  • :smart:
  • :blush:

Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces)

You may choose an icon for your message from this list

Additional Options

  • Will turn www.example.com into [URL]http://www.example.com[/URL].

  • If selected, :) will not be replaced with smile

Subscription
Rate Thread

You may rate this thread from 1-star (Terrible) to 5-stars (Excellent) if you wish to do so.

Topic Review (Newest First)

  • 08-12-2008, 09:07 PM
    Todd Allcock
    At 11 Aug 2008 08:24:17 -0600 David Moyer wrote:

    > > A few examples of problems I've personally encountered on my iPhone that
    > > could have been solved on other platforms using copy/paste.
    > >
    > > 1) Receive an address via (SMS|email|website), navigate to that address
    > > in Google Maps.
    > >
    > > 2) Receive an address via (SMS|email|website), add it to a contact.
    > >
    > > 3) Record an order number from a web purchase (okay, a screenshot kinda
    > > helps here, although it still doesn't help me email that number without
    > > looking a little less then professional)
    > >
    > > 4) Navigate to a URL received via email which the iPhone mail client
    > > failed to recognize as clickable.
    > >
    > > 5) Email to an address written like "bob at crazyhat.net" on the web or
    > > in a mail account.
    > >
    > > 6) Copy a sent or received SMS from one contact and send it via
    > > (SMS|email)

    >
    > all good points, it will happen in time.



    Sometime in the next "seventeen years" you claim it'll take other phones to
    "catch up" to the iPhone?


  • 08-11-2008, 07:52 PM
    Todd Allcock
    At 11 Aug 2008 15:42:39 -0600 DevilsPGD wrote:

    > >[As an aside, that's the reason I believe the iPhone lacks cut-n-paste-

    how
    > >would they implement it in the UI without it being confused with flicks,
    > >slides, pinches, etc.

    >
    > "Press and hold" would be one option, this would start the text giggling
    > or something "cute" like that, and allow text to be selected.



    Sure- there are certainly ways to implement it, but I wonder it'd pass the
    "fun" test.

    > Another would be a "copy" button at the bottom that switches into "copy"
    > mode, allowing highlightable text, and the copy button would then turn
    > into a cut/copy/delete "action" button"


    Certainly possible, but could cause problems if you would want to select
    more than a single screen of text, since you'd lose flicking/scrolling
    while in copy mode. (Or selecting mode could auto-scroll at any edge of
    the screen.)

    Not bad-you came up with two solutions inan afternoon- two more than Apple
    has in over a year! ;-)



  • 08-11-2008, 03:42 PM
    DevilsPGD
    In message <[email protected]> Todd Allcock
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >[As an aside, that's the reason I believe the iPhone lacks cut-n-paste- how
    >would they implement it in the UI without it being confused with flicks,
    >slides, pinches, etc.


    "Press and hold" would be one option, this would start the text giggling
    or something "cute" like that, and allow text to be selected.

    Another would be a "copy" button at the bottom that switches into "copy"
    mode, allowing highlightable text, and the copy button would then turn
    into a cut/copy/delete "action" button"
  • 08-11-2008, 08:41 AM
    Todd Allcock
    At 11 Aug 2008 06:55:03 -0600 DevilsPGD wrote:

    > >I wasn't very impressed with the "full" Opera Mobile for WinMo- it used a
    > >ton of memory and rendered fairly slowly.

    >
    > Not only does it use a ton of memory and render slowly, it has some
    > pretty serious navigation limitations/difficulties on larger sites.
    >
    > It's marginally better then previous Opera versions, but it really shows
    > just how good a job iPhone/Safari does.


    I haven't tried the 9.x beta- I was sufficiently unimpressed by the 8.x
    versions, and the 9 beta reportedly has a few serious bugs I don't want to
    have to dig out of with a registry editor.


    > >Opera Mini (a java app than runs
    > >on most cellphones, both dumb and smart) is a different story- it's a
    > >server-based app so the heavy-duty rendering is done at Opera's servers,
    > >not on the phone itself.

    >
    >
    > I've tried it a few times over the years, but I've never been impressed,
    > Google's "mobile version" does much better using the on-device browser,
    > at least for my needs.



    For pure "information scraping" I agree about Google, and prior to 4.x,
    Mini was a waste of space on a smartphone (but still an improvement over
    most dumbphone browsers!) but Mini 4.1 actually does a nice job rendering
    full versions of sites that IEM can't, if you're willing to put up with
    it's clunky "dumbphone" input method. As I said, for me, these are all
    backup browsers- IEM is still my first choice- it's adequate, relatively
    quick, and better integrated into the OS for look/feel/behavior.

    Netfront's 3.5 beta is an improvement ove their previous attempts but still
    has a very awkward menu structure and their zoom/pan screen gestures
    interfere with cut/paste (the app has difficulties telling a "hold and
    drag" to select text from a "tap and drag" to pan, unless you "hold" for a
    ridiculously long time!)

    [As an aside, that's the reason I believe the iPhone lacks cut-n-paste- how
    would they implement it in the UI without it being confused with flicks,
    slides, pinches, etc. The iPhone wants to be all about the "user
    experience" which to Apple means no/short learning curve- a bunch of
    unintuitive screen gestures to learn doesn't fit that goal. Bettrr to let
    their users go without features than make them actually read a manual or
    remember something like those "other" computer companies make you do...]

    Of all the recent 3rd party WinMo browsers, the Skyfire Beta shows the most
    promise so far, but only because it supports flash (via a slow Opera Mini-
    like server implementation.) I keep it on my device just for flash TV
    viewing during downtime.



  • 08-11-2008, 08:24 AM
    David Moyer
    In article <[email protected]>,
    DevilsPGD <[email protected]> wrote:

    > A few examples of problems I've personally encountered on my iPhone that
    > could have been solved on other platforms using copy/paste.
    >
    > 1) Receive an address via (SMS|email|website), navigate to that address
    > in Google Maps.
    >
    > 2) Receive an address via (SMS|email|website), add it to a contact.
    >
    > 3) Record an order number from a web purchase (okay, a screenshot kinda
    > helps here, although it still doesn't help me email that number without
    > looking a little less then professional)
    >
    > 4) Navigate to a URL received via email which the iPhone mail client
    > failed to recognize as clickable.
    >
    > 5) Email to an address written like "bob at crazyhat.net" on the web or
    > in a mail account.
    >
    > 6) Copy a sent or received SMS from one contact and send it via
    > (SMS|email)


    all good points, it will happen in time.
  • 08-11-2008, 06:55 AM
    DevilsPGD
    In message <[email protected]> Todd Allcock
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >At 11 Aug 2008 03:43:20 +0000 Larry wrote:
    >
    >> > Opera Mini still gives a better experience with less bandwidth and
    >> > memory usage.

    >>
    >> We had a special Opera for the N800 back on OS2007 (Bora). Nokia dumped
    >> it for open source Mozilla, which is much better.

    >
    >
    >I wasn't very impressed with the "full" Opera Mobile for WinMo- it used a
    >ton of memory and rendered fairly slowly.


    Not only does it use a ton of memory and render slowly, it has some
    pretty serious navigation limitations/difficulties on larger sites.

    It's marginally better then previous Opera versions, but it really shows
    just how good a job iPhone/Safari does.

    >Opera Mini (a java app than runs
    >on most cellphones, both dumb and smart) is a different story- it's a
    >server-based app so the heavy-duty rendering is done at Opera's servers,
    >not on the phone itself. It's sort of like when you use a desktop browser
    >on your tablet with remote terminal software- your desktop does the "heavy
    >lifting" and the tablet just needs to draw the resulting display.


    I've tried it a few times over the years, but I've never been impressed,
    Google's "mobile version" does much better using the on-device browser,
    at least for my needs.
  • 08-11-2008, 06:55 AM
    DevilsPGD
    In message <[email protected]> David Moyer
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >DevilsPGD <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> >Without the pinch and stretch UI it's certainly less fun, and of course
    >> >doesn't support Flash or a lot of Java, or even cut-and-paste!)

    >>
    >> No cut and paste? Are you serious?

    >
    >it's not really needed on the iphone since everything is so well weaved
    >together. data just flows from one app to another kinda like how iLife
    >operates. cut and paste was a throw back to the desktop era.


    Wow. That is *so* not true.

    First, we're talking about a Safari-like implementation for Windows
    Mobile here.

    However, even on the iPhone, we're a long way from data "just flowing"
    from one app to another well enough to alleviate the need for
    copy/paste.

    Having been using an iPhone for a few days, there are a few things I do
    very regularly which either need copy and paste, or more integration
    between applications.

    A few examples of problems I've personally encountered on my iPhone that
    could have been solved on other platforms using copy/paste.

    1) Receive an address via (SMS|email|website), navigate to that address
    in Google Maps.

    2) Receive an address via (SMS|email|website), add it to a contact.

    3) Record an order number from a web purchase (okay, a screenshot kinda
    helps here, although it still doesn't help me email that number without
    looking a little less then professional)

    4) Navigate to a URL received via email which the iPhone mail client
    failed to recognize as clickable.

    5) Email to an address written like "bob at crazyhat.net" on the web or
    in a mail account.

    6) Copy a sent or received SMS from one contact and send it via
    (SMS|email)
  • 08-11-2008, 01:10 AM
    Todd Allcock
    At 10 Aug 2008 22:36:24 -0600 David Moyer wrote:

    > > No cut and paste? Are you serious?

    >
    > it's not really needed on the iphone since everything is so well weaved
    > together. data just flows from one app to another kinda like how iLife
    > operates. cut and paste was a throw back to the desktop era.



    So tell me, Oxford, if I look up someone's address and phone number on,
    say, 411.com in Safari, how does that data "flow" to a new Contact without
    cut and paste?


    > you can always add it if you want.
    >
    > http://www.iphonealley.com/news/copy-paste-using-icopy


    That (awkwardly) copies from one web page to another, or to an e-mail- not
    to a contact or appointment, which doesn't help with my scenario above.





  • 08-10-2008, 10:36 PM
    David Moyer
    DevilsPGD <[email protected]> wrote:

    > >Without the pinch and stretch UI it's certainly less fun, and of course
    > >doesn't support Flash or a lot of Java, or even cut-and-paste!)

    >
    > No cut and paste? Are you serious?


    it's not really needed on the iphone since everything is so well weaved
    together. data just flows from one app to another kinda like how iLife
    operates. cut and paste was a throw back to the desktop era.

    you can always add it if you want.

    http://www.iphonealley.com/news/copy-paste-using-icopy
  • 08-10-2008, 10:31 PM
    Todd Allcock
    At 11 Aug 2008 03:43:20 +0000 Larry wrote:

    > > Opera Mini still gives a better experience with less bandwidth and

    > memory
    > > usage.
    > >
    > >
    > >

    >
    > We had a special Opera for the N800 back on OS2007 (Bora). Nokia dumped
    > it for open source Mozilla, which is much better.



    I wasn't very impressed with the "full" Opera Mobile for WinMo- it used a
    ton of memory and rendered fairly slowly. Opera Mini (a java app than runs
    on most cellphones, both dumb and smart) is a different story- it's a
    server-based app so the heavy-duty rendering is done at Opera's servers,
    not on the phone itself. It's sort of like when you use a desktop browser
    on your tablet with remote terminal software- your desktop does the "heavy
    lifting" and the tablet just needs to draw the resulting display.


    > Mozilla is now working on Fennec, the mobile version of Firefox 3:
    > https://wiki.mozilla.org/Mobile/FennecVision
    >
    > http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...ozilla-fennec-
    > targets-handheld-browser-market.html



    I'm looking forward to trying the WM version. Mozilla's last attempt
    ("MiniMo") had promise but was abandoned in beta.


    > I'm told Opera's mini/micro browsers use some kind of proxy engine at
    > Opera to optimize the webpage for the little screen in your particular
    > installation. When you call a webpage, you call it through the Opera
    > proxy engine and it actually makes the call, doing the optimization on
    > the fly. I think that's why my experience with it was a little too slow
    > for my liking. Optimization isn't necessary on an 800 pixel wide Linux
    > tablet screen....same as most webpages, already. Would be great on a
    > phone, though.


    Particularly over a slow data connection- on WiFi I rarely use it, but on
    slow EDGE it works faster than the native WinMo IE browser.



  • 08-10-2008, 09:43 PM
    Larry
    Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote in news:g7nusu$8jb$2
    @aioe.org:

    > Opera Mini still gives a better experience with less bandwidth and

    memory
    > usage.
    >
    >
    >


    We had a special Opera for the N800 back on OS2007 (Bora). Nokia dumped
    it for open source Mozilla, which is much better.

    Mozilla is now working on Fennec, the mobile version of Firefox 3:
    https://wiki.mozilla.org/Mobile/FennecVision

    http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...ozilla-fennec-
    targets-handheld-browser-market.html

    Bergie, one of our genius coders, has an install to test out the
    bleeding edge Fennec on the Nokia tablets on:
    http://bergie.iki.fi/blog/numpty_physics_and_fennec-
    the_tablet_is_becoming_more_fun.html

    There is another version of the Full Firefox for the tablet, but Bergie
    took it off his blog as there are some bad bugs in it, yet. Fennec is
    better for the little mobile screens, leaving lots more content real
    estate to see the webpage.

    One of its coolest features is consolidating the SEARCH and URL into a
    single entity. If you enter a URL, it goes to there. If you enter
    something besides a URL, it goes to Google for answers. As you'll see
    on the arstechnica website's benchmark tests, Fennec runs like greased
    lightning compared to the stock MicroB browser in OS2008. It is
    lightning fast, even on sellular circuits....(c;

    I can't wait until the PLUGINS are complete so I can FINALLY run JAVA
    apps on the tablet. It'll also have Flash 9, not the Flash 7 we have
    now.

    I'm told Opera's mini/micro browsers use some kind of proxy engine at
    Opera to optimize the webpage for the little screen in your particular
    installation. When you call a webpage, you call it through the Opera
    proxy engine and it actually makes the call, doing the optimization on
    the fly. I think that's why my experience with it was a little too slow
    for my liking. Optimization isn't necessary on an 800 pixel wide Linux
    tablet screen....same as most webpages, already. Would be great on a
    phone, though.

  • 08-10-2008, 09:05 PM
    Todd Allcock
    At 10 Aug 2008 18:34:03 -0600 DevilsPGD wrote:

    > >Without the pinch and stretch UI it's certainly less fun, and of course
    > >doesn't support Flash or a lot of Java, or even cut-and-paste!)

    >
    > No cut and paste? Are you serious?



    Yes, but to be fair, Torch Mobile's Iris browser is in beta. It's not
    really Safari, of course (hence the "quotes",) but just the Apple Webkit
    rendering engine used by Safari wrapped in whatever code it needs to get it
    running on WinMo. It's also much slower than Safari on the iPhone.

    I haven't tried the prior betas, which were reportedly unstable enough to
    better be described more as "proof of concepts" than betas. The current
    version is stable and very pretty (cute animations and fade effects)
    although slow (probably because of the cute animations and fade effects!)

    I saw no reason to use it in it's current form, but I'll try future
    versions as they become available- OperaMini is still a better "backup
    browser" for IE Mobile, IMO.


    > >but it's
    > >"Safari" user-agent let me run a few iPhone Webapps in the half-hour I
    > >played with it before deleting it regaining the 6MB of space it wasted on
    > >my device...

    >
    > Does it include all those handy security holes that made jailbreaking
    > the iPhones so trivial?



    That I couldn't tell you, but I suspect the Safari Browser is more tightly
    integrated into the iPhone OS than any 3rd party app would be in WinMo.

    However, given that any 3rd party app is essentially allowed free reign
    over a WinMo device, I suspect any WinMo device is fundamentally less
    "secure" than an iPhone. Of course, some of us, who believe that owning a
    phone gives us the right to install and run anything we darn well please on
    it without hacking it first, don't necessarily see that as a disadvantage!
    ;-)


  • 08-10-2008, 06:34 PM
    DevilsPGD
    In message <[email protected]> Todd Allcock
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >http://msmobiles.com/news.php/7556.html
    >
    >Without the pinch and stretch UI it's certainly less fun, and of course
    >doesn't support Flash or a lot of Java, or even cut-and-paste!)


    No cut and paste? Are you serious?

    >but it's
    >"Safari" user-agent let me run a few iPhone Webapps in the half-hour I
    >played with it before deleting it regaining the 6MB of space it wasted on
    >my device...


    Does it include all those handy security holes that made jailbreaking
    the iPhones so trivial?
  • 08-10-2008, 05:50 PM
    Todd Allcock
    http://msmobiles.com/news.php/7556.html

    Without the pinch and stretch UI it's certainly less fun, and of course
    doesn't support Flash or a lot of Java, or even cut-and-paste!) but it's
    "Safari" user-agent let me run a few iPhone Webapps in the half-hour I
    played with it before deleting it regaining the 6MB of space it wasted on
    my device...


    Not the best WinMo browser available but it's free, and allows you to
    access a few sites WinMo's native IE Mobile renders badly.

    Opera Mini still gives a better experience with less bandwidth and memory
    usage.




Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •