Talk:Windows Mobile

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Windows Mobile has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Brands (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Microsoft / Windows (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microsoft on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Microsoft Windows (marked as Top-importance).
 
WikiProject Computing (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Windows Phone Family[edit]

Suggestion: I think a new page called Windows Phone should be created. This would be the main Windows Phone article and from that we would have three daughter articles: Windows Mobile, Windows Phone 7 and Microsoft Kin. This way, I think we could eliminate some of the possible confusion which I think is present in the current articles. At the moment for example, in the Microsoft Kin article, the phrase Windows Phone family links to this Windows Mobile page.

Unfortunately, in terms of Wikipedia skill, I am a newbie and don't really know the protocol for this sort of suggestion.Casey boy (talk) 13:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

There's already a Windows Phone 7 article. If and when there's a Windows Phone 8, that article will probably be renamed Windows Phone. I've amended the link on the Kin article so it points to Windows Phone 7 instead. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 14:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but what I'm referring to is the fact that nowadays a device running Windows Mobile is called a Windows Phone. Windows Phone 7 (the OS), Windows Mobile (the OS) and Microsoft Kin make up the Microsoft's mobile family which is called Windows Phone. So if an article called Windows Phone was created which was the parent article for the three different strands of OS produced for mobiles by Microsoft. I take your point though, what would happen when we have Windows Phone 8 come out...Casey boy (talk) 11:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
My understanding is that Windows Phone is just an OS. Do you have a reliable source clearly stating it includes older Mobile OSes and Kin hardware? Preferably from Microsoft itself? ButOnMethItIs (talk) 14:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Yep (it's been used before in the naming convention discussion, but "...a Windows phone has Windows Mobile 6.5, the most up-to-date mobile operating system from Microsoft".(1). So here Microsoft are saying that devices running Windows Mobile are Windows phones. Now I couldn't find a direct source about the Kin, but I found one from engadget which is pretty reliable "...known as the Kin One and Kin Two. The devices are being marketed as Windows Phones..."(2).
So to me, it seems as though there is a Windows phone family in which we have devices running Windows Mobile and devices which will soon be running Windows Phone 7 and then the Kin devices. Thus, it would seem logical to me to have an article dedicated to the Windows phone family with daughter articles linking to each strain of device. Casey boy (talk) 09:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Infobox[edit]

Windows Phone 7 Series is NOT the latest stable release, WM6.5.3 is. To say WP7 is to say alpha builds of an OS/program is stable! Therefore, since WP7 is not the stable version - the screenshot should have remained of the 6.5.3 version. Also, the kernel type is given correctly for the 6.5.x versions not WP7. Any disagreement? If not, I will change it back. Casey boy (talk) 12:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I see someone has changed the stable release bit Casey boy (talk) 18:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to call on this one again. The article is now, properly, named Windows Mobile. As such, in the infobox to say that the latest unstable version is Windows Phone 7 is incorrect. Windows Phone 7 is NOT a Windows Mobile release. Therefore, I would accept that Windows Mobile 6.5.5 is the latest one - or, perhaps, we just remove that line from the info box completely. Thoughts? Casey boy (talk) 09:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

GO and change! As long as no mobile is released with the new operating system, 6.X is the latest. change back! mabdul 09:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
OK, I have done. I don't know of a date to put there, though, so please anyone feel free to include that.Casey boy (talk) 09:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Small error: ("Infobox OS", field "website"): the link is dead AND it doesn't redirect to any Web site. Can you fix that please? Thanks and all the best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.251.42.106 (talk) 10:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Versions > 6.5 heading[edit]

The part of the article "Windows Mobile 6.5" (3.8) under the "Versions" heading is all written in future tense (presumably before 6.5 was released). It now needs updating to the present tense and we need to confirm whether the speculations made are indeed true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casey boy (talkcontribs) 20:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

You're right! Feel free to take charge with that. Be bold. Brian Reading (talk) 00:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I have done so. Though, I'm not 100% happy with it. I've also updated the WM 6.5.3 section since that has been released now. Casey boy (talk) 20:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

6.5 Screenshots[edit]

Please stop posting screenshots of Windows Mobile 6.5 until: a) those screenshots show a completely stock Today screen without any customisations b) Windows Mobile 6.5 is known to have actually RTMed. Thank you. CalumCook234 (talk) 19:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know Windows Mobile 6.5 has been released to manufacturers since May.[1] [2] [3] [4]. However, I do agree that a completely stock image is needed. Brian Reading (talk) 01:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I, Koman90 the original upholder of the winmo6.5 screen shot have uploaded a "totaly stock" immage taken form the Microsoft device emulator as found o the microsoft website, sorry about the custom home screen, it was uploaded form my phone which has a custom cooked ROM and i was unaware that those were custom applets. --Koman90 (talk) 00:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Windows Phone Naming[edit]

I think the article needs to be update since Microsoft has dropped the WinMo line and is now addressing all Windows Mobile 6.X and future OS Windows Phone

http://www.intomobile.com/2009/07/30/microsoft-kills-windows-mobile-brand-births-windows-phone.html

Today, we learn that Microsoft (NSDQ: MSFT) is planning on ditching, nay killing, the Windows Mobile brand. What about Windows Mobile 6.5? Windows Mobile 7? Nope, it’ll be known as Windows Phone. The change also applies to past WinMo platforms. From this point forward all Windows Mobile 6.x operating systems will be referred to as Windows Phone.

Animere 16:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it's important to see how this plays out, because as of yet, Microsoft has the "Windows Mobile" moniker and logo all over their official site. Thanks for pointing this out though. Brian Reading (talk) 17:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

An "announcement" of rebranding is not a rebranding. It is only when it is officially changed and marketed by the new brand shall it be known by that brand. Furthurmore, sometimes large product lines take a while to migrate. Consider Bing. That came out a while ago but there are still many services under the Windows Live branding. Rasmasyean (talk) 02:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Steve Ballmer said at MWC that the operating system will still be called Windows Mobile, but the devices the operating system runs on will be known as "Windows phones". "Windows Phone OS" does NOT exist. That's the truth, straight from the horse's mouth. . Also, Bing is a search engine. Windows Live is a totally separate brand and it will not be having its name changed to Bing. CalumCook234 (talk) 08:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not Microsoft decides to change the name of their product makes no difference on the naming of previous products. They cannot change the name of past Windows Mobile products (they would have to somehow change the About screen and Device Info screen on every ROM in the world running it, an obviously impossible task). It would be like saying that all Ford Mustangs ever made are now going to be called Ford Cougars. I'm sorry, but I think a 1957 Ford Mustang will STILL be a 1957 Ford Mustang, no matter what they the NEW model is called. CLHatch (talk) 23:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

One question - why is the article named Windows Phone but starts with Windows Mobile?120.152.188.64 (talk) 09:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion. Windows Mobile does exist - all version that are currently out are called Windows Mobile. Windows Phone applies to Windows Phone 7 series and newer. So, let's keep this article names Windows Mobile and have links to a new Windows Phone article (I know there is one for Windows Phone 7) and let's explain that the whole system was renamed but fundamentally this article is for Windows Mobile OS.

If, however, we keep the Windows Phone article (as it is now) with the Windows Mobile OS in there - then should Windows Phone 7 series really have it's own page?Casey boy (talk) 12:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Windows Phone is the name of the device runs Windows Mobile as its OS, not the name of the OS. The name of Microsoft's Operating System remains Windows Mobile. If you visit Microsoft's Windows Phone page under just the facts it says "Only a Windows phone has Windows Mobile 6.5, the most up-to-date mobile operating system from Microsoft. And that’s a fact" and the phones listed there all have "Windows Mobile as their OS [5]
This page was titled Windows Mobile but since the Windows Phone 7 series was announced it was moved to Windows Phone. I believe that since this page is about the OS it should be called Windows Mobile. --Chris Ssk talk 19:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I support this edit by Chris Ssk. Brian Reading (talk) 19:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
But the new OS, is definitely called Windows Phone 7 series. So whilst, currently Windows phones are running Windows Mobile - this will not be the case. So I think we need to decide - do we have this page for Windows Mobile exclusively or Windows Phone which incorporates Windows Mobile. At the moment, there just seem to much ambiguity in the article's heading/naming/redirects etc. So, if we're keeping the page as it is - then I also agree that we should stick to Windows Mobile and explain any devices running WM is a WP. Casey boy (talk) 00:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Should the Pocket PC article exist?[edit]

Should the Pocket PC article be deleted? If not, I think a clear destinction should be made between the two articles, and information about earlier "Pocket PC" OSes be moved out of Windows Mobile and into Pocket PC. Either separate them into 2 different things, or delete Pocket PC. After all, the OS did not start as a phone OS, so all those early Pocket PC OSes could sit well in the Pocket PC article. After telephony was added, and it was renamed "Windows Mobile", it should stay in this article. Otherwise you've got a doubling of information. I started a similar discussion on the Pocket PC talk page.--Lester 07:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

You're not making much sense. Delete Windows Mobile because it wasn't originally a phone OS? It wasn't renamed Windows Mobile after telephony was added. There were Pocket PC phones with the release of the Pocket PC 2000 OS. Essentially, Pocket PC is/was a hardware specification, and Windows Mobile (Pocket PC 2000/2002) is an OS. I don't see how the two belong in the same article. Brian Reading (talk) 09:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't suggesting that Windows Mobile be deleted. But possibly Pocket PC should be. Pocket PC isn't hardware or software now. It's just legacy. So now the OS is Windows Mobile, and the hardware is Windows Mobile Classic. No? I think it's OK to keep the Pocket PC article, to highlight the old OS and devices that were sold under that name, but I don't think the same information should be duplicated in 2 articles.--Lester 10:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, I think all Windows Mobile devices are now officially known as "Windows phones", whether they run Windows Mobile 6.5 Professional or Windows Mobile 6.5 Standard. I'm guessing that the Windows Mobile 6.5 Classic variant will be discontinued along with its companion hardware devices. To clarify though, "Pocket PC 2000" refers to Windows Mobile, while the term "Pocket PC" refers to the hardware specification. I don't believe Pocket PC 2000 should be discussed in the Pocket PC article, as it is really only referring to the OS (it should probably link to the Windows Mobile article somewhere though). The part where it gets messy is that to make decisive changes to the Pocket PC article, you have to make the argument that the Pocket PC doesn't exist anymore, even though it technically does, but is just a different name now (Windows phone). Ha, my head is spinning, trying to phrase all of this properly. Brian Reading (talk) 22:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it's very confusing. Microsoft keeps changing the names of its products. I guess Microsoft itself tried to make a break from all those old products, and shift the focus of Windows Mobile to new products and smartphones. The question is whether this article includes all those old products, or they migrate over to the Pocket PC article. Or as you say, keep PocketPC 2000 here, and move older ones to the other article.--Lester 22:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
This whole article should now be moved to 'Windows Phone'. It is the umbrella article for all Microsoft's various phone platforms.--Lester 03:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Defining the difference between WinCE and Windows Mobile[edit]

Tell me if this is wrong. The way I see it is Windows CE is at the centre of Microsoft's micro operating system world. The other things come from Windows CE. Imagine a diagram with WinCE at the hub. Then the other variants (like Windows Mobile, Windows Auto, etc etc) are satellites around the central hub of Windows CE. Currently, both the Windows CE article and the Windows Mobile article have links to say it is used in various devices, such as Windows Auto and Portable Media Centre. I think it is more accurate to have these links in the Windows CE article, as Windows CE is the base of those other operating systems. Windows Mobile contains the GUI and software stack for hand-held mobile devices and telephony. Tell me what you think.--Lester 06:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It's really quite complicated. "Windows Mobile" is an operating system defined by Microsoft. However it seems as though Microsoft has re-defined what Windows Mobile is and isn't over the years. At one point "Microsoft Auto" was referred to as "Windows Mobile for Automotive". What about the systems that run the Windows Mobile for Automotive OS? Are these devices not Windows Mobile devices anymore? It's difficult to say.Brian Reading (talk) 21:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Brian. Thanks for replying. It's hard for enthusiasts to keep track of it all, so I wonder whether the general public will absorb or understand all these name changes. I'm thinking that that Hardware Platforms section should not have the sections on Automotive and Portable Media Center. These can be linked from the Windows CE article. Instead, it should mention the current 2 hardware variants, Windows Mobile devices and Windows Mobile Classic devices (I don't think Classic is currently mentioned in the article). Despite its former name, the Microsoft Auto is controlling engine functions and whatnot, doesn't come with the Windows Mobile GUI or telephony stack, and to me is a different branch of Windows CE. I might have a go at rearranging the Hardware section here, but if I do I'll provide a diff on the talk page in case anyone wants to restore it or access the old text.--Lester 22:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
OK. Done it. Here's the dif in case anyone wants to retrieve the older version. Maybe someone can explain the new naming and terminology better than I have, so feel free to improve. I also haven't mentioned Windows Mobile Pro, which probably should be included.--Lester 23:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Nice attempt, but it should be noted that a Pocket PC could refer to either a Windows Mobile Professional or a Classic device. Brian Reading (talk) 02:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I had another go (here). I think we've got it right this time. Cheers to the marketing people at Redmond who came up with these glorious names!--Lester 04:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Best I've seen yet! Good job. Brian Reading (talk) 05:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Finger-friendly[edit]

Can we please stop using this detestable phrase? "Finger-friendly". Every time I hear it it gets under my skin. Wouldn't "larger UI elements" or even, god forbid, a specific description of the changes be more useful? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CalumCook234 (talkcontribs) 22:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

"fill-in sources?"[edit]

Some reports say that the new mobile phone platform will be based around the Zune audio player.[66]

That line points to source #66, which says nothing and has nothing to do with the Zune MEDIA player.

(I'm pretty sure the information is sound, but the source is not)

Could someone put up a tag about verifying citations or something along the lines of that?

Viet|Pham (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the original reference did not cover it. I changed the reference for another. Fixed. -Lester 20:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Uncertain Future[edit]

I have discovered an article saying that Windows Mobile could actually 'turn around' in terms of market share and shipments could triple by 2013. [6]. Is this a WP:RS and does it belong in the article somewhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.208.146.176 (talk) 10:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I put the NPOV back. The fact that the market share has dropped is fact-based, and and discussed in the "Market Share" Section, but even there it is rather myopic. Windows Mobile/CE has been around for a while, and no doubt had its market share go up and down like other products and platforms. I, as a reader, would value the opinions of people actually working in the tech industry over Journalist/Analysts op-eds, which is mostly what the "Uncertain Future" section cites. QUINTIX (talk) 22:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
When you read the technology magazines, or even mainstream media coverage of Windows Mobile, a reasonably high percentage of the articles state the uncertainty of the platforms future. It's a major part of the coverage of the platform, so I'm not sure it should be just deleted. I think it's OK if the prediction is attributed to the publication that made it. I think it should also be limited to the major reliable publications that are well known. Yes, the iSupply prediction was the only one that went in the opposite direction, predicting a steep rise in Windows Mobile usage. I have no objection to it being included also, though it may have been proved wrong already, as since that prediction was made, WinMo's market share has further fallen. The main 2 companies tracking market share on a regular quarterly basis are Gartner and Canalys. iSupply made a one-off prediction, but don't track the quarterly industry statistics.--Lester 22:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Just a side note, The Guardian is a reliable source, but even the very first citation, regarding having a stylus, links to an OP-ED piece. So not even the words "Originally appearing as the Pocket PC 2000 operating system, most Windows Mobile phones come with a stylus pen, which is used to enter commands by tapping it on the screen" can't even be verified without asking (rhetorically) "where's the love"? QUINTIX (talk) 23:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I must agree that this section of the article is absolutely biased. The future of any mobile OS platform in uncertain and the comments written in this section are mostly opinion, one could argue. There are many positive aspects of Windows Mobile and Microsoft can make any move in the near future that could change everything. If the Windows Mobile article has an "Uncertain Future" section, then every mobile OS article on Wikipedia should have one as well, otherwise, let's get rid of this biased junk.--Interframe (talk) 03:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I think the sort of talk about the future of Windows Mobile market share should not be discussed in the article, as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Specifically the third instance discussed in the aforementioned link applies: "Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate." This is just my two cents. Brian Reading (talk) 08:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't think the Wikipedia article is doing any speculation itself. It is quoting Gartner, the NYTimes, the Washington Post, and attributing the speculation to those sources. It is quoting what they said and attributing it. That's allowable, and the proper way to do it, and very different to simply saying that something is fact. And besides, everyone who reads the technical publications would have seen the speculation about WinMo's future. It's everywhere, and widespread. --Lester 10:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
You're right. I didn't examine the sources closely enough. Thanks for pointing that out. Brian Reading (talk) 20:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Very bad precedent. Its purely speculative. It doesn't matter if 10000 speculative, opinion based, sources "agree". What if there is "speculation" that the United States is "over" (there is). Should the article on the United States include a section "uncertain future"? With links to the publications that feel the US is now an economic "has been"? An encyclopedic work is not the place for "piling on" a bandwagon of popular opinion. It should never be a tyranny of activists, and this section is a great example of that in action. In 1990, if the Wiki had existed, should the Apple section have included the company being a goner? Every publication at the time agreed Apple was done. Well all of those folks have been proven myopic and short sighted by history. At the very least, it will certainly be ridiculous when the entire section has to be pulled if Microsoft turns it around with Windows Mobile 7. Any product line is subject to success or failure based on the amount of investment poured into it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlambert890 (talkcontribs) 23:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) If 10000 speculative reliable published sources agree, then it is certainly viable content. What they say is relevant to the topic, and they seem to be sources that have some reputation for being reliable. That's the wikipedia standard. We obviously couldn't state as fact what they say will happen, but we can state as fact that they say it. WP:NPOV clearly lays that all out. Respected writers' statements about the future of the US and its economy is viable too, in the appropriate articles. DMacks (talk) 22:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
One of the issues in documenting that Windows Mobile has an uncertain future, is that few organisations issue a press release proclaiming that they have dropped/will drop both support and development of their applications on Windows Mobile (or any other platform). A journalist covering that story literally has to go to each organisation and ask about the current status of the specific software for the specific platform. Take, for example, screen readers: In December 2008, three were available for WinMO. Today, only one is available --- if you can find a local distributor. The developers for the other two don't even mention them on their website. The same pattern can be found in other niche categories.jonathon (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
A major issue when a Gartner report suggests a market share decline, is that their report becomes a self-full-filling prophecy. As such, keep the "uncertain future" section in. jonathon (talk) 23:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Since there has not been a "discussion" on this for a whole month, and no references for improving or retaining market share have been given, I think it is fair enough to remove the NPOV tag. I have however slightly renamed the section to be less emphatic. Ingolfson (talk) 07:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Not a smartphone?[edit]

"In addition, several Pocket PC 2000 phones were released, however the Smartphone hardware platform was not yet created"

In what way is a phone running Pocket PC 2000 not a smartphone? In what way didn't smartphones exist? I thought the basic definition of the latter term is a phone running a general purpose operating system, and therefore dates back to the Nokia Communicator back in the mid 90s...? 212.159.69.4 (talk) 15:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You're correct in noting that Pocket PC phones were smartphones in the general sense. However, in this sentence, the term "Smartphone" is referring to a specific Microsoft product line called "Smartphone". Today, this product line is referred to as "Windows Mobile Standard" or "Windows Phones without touch screens". It's confusing I know. I will reword the sentence to try to clarify. Thanks. Brian Reading (talk) 20:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

720p MPEG4 AVC playback[edit]

As a proud owner of an Acer neoTouch S200 with Snapdragon SoC, I can say that actually there's 720p video playback by the means of the WMP (through Qualcomm's DirectShow codecs provided by Acer Co.) if it's in a proper container (.mp4), and within the right profile and level requirements (High profile and level 4.x or less). It's not the problem of the OS that either lazy or greedy companies (guess who) can't mess around with Direct Show filters without breaking it...

I agree with your logic. Saying that Windows Mobile doesn't recognize HD video is inaccurate. It's much more of a reflection of carriers and those who are licensed by Microsoft that screw this up. Therefore, it's a bit misleading, and I removed that bullet-point from the criticism section. Brian Reading (talk) 02:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Article name[edit]

I notice there has been some edit waring with the article name, between 'Windows Mobile' and 'Windows Phone'. I think it should now be 'Windows Phone'. Last year, Microsoft was calling the operating system 'Windows Mobile', while the hardware was called a 'Windows Phone'. However, now it has become apparent that Microsoft is calling both 'Windows Phone'. This article is the umbrella article for all the various versions of Microsoft's phone operating system. 'Windows Phone' is the only name that can encompass it all.--Lester 07:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that Microsoft is calling both OS and hardware Windows Phone. As I said in the Windows Phone Naming section above, if you visit Microsoft's Windows Phone page under just the facts it says "Only a Windows phone has Windows Mobile 6.5, the most up-to-date mobile operating system from Microsoft. And that’s a fact" and the phones listed there all have "Windows Mobile as their OS [7]
Since this page is about the OS it should be called Windows Mobile. --Chris Ssk talk 08:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
The new OS is called 'Windows Phone 7 Series'. Microsoft announced a cutdown WinMo called 'Windows Phone Starter Edition', which Microsoft has already discussed at press conferences. There are numerous other versions of the OS with the Windows Phone name. It's obvious that Microsoft is diminishing the word 'mobile' from the name. Look at the Microsoft press releases from this month (here). On the left column, you can see a heading referring to 'Windows Phone 6.5'.--Lester 09:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I believe that changing the entire article to accommodate future events is inappropriate as per WP:BALL. If/when MSFT releases the now OS or renames the old OS the appropriate changes to the article can be made. In the meanwhile MSFT's phone OS remains Windows Mobile, please visit the press release website you list, follow the 6.5 link and read the info provided in "Product Insight Guide" Windows® Mobile 6.5 Professional, which is the version of the OS that comes with touch-screen phones. --Chris Ssk talk 14:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Using the WP:NOTCRYSTAL argument is just wrong. Obviously Microsoft is still in transition, and you can find references to both 'Windows Phone' and 'Windows Mobile' on Microsoft's website, however, the term 'Windows Phone' is being actively used now by Microsoft and the press to describe the operating system. See Microsoft's developer website as one example. Microsoft has already begun selling 'Windows Phone Starter Edition' licenses to OEMs (ZDNet article). We're talking about here and now, not crystal ball speculation, and you need a better excuse than that before reverting the article name. Article should be changed back to 'Windows Phone' ASAP.--Lester 01:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I have edited all versions of Windows Mobile 6.5.X to Windows Phone 6.5.X because that's the official name :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MadMatt099 (talkcontribs) 18:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

WM 6.5 -> WP7 Upgrade[edit]

There has been no official statement from Microsoft about upgrades for WM6.5 to WP7. Instead what we have are a few sources citing some employees saying there will be no upgrade. However, we can also find sources from other companies saying there will be (i.e. Adobe). We also have companies saying that this question has not been answered yet (i.e. HTC). Whilst I understand a MS employee may be a better reference than a 3rd party employee - if we have no official press release then can we say that there will be no upgrade?

Let me just reiterate - this is not a debate about the will we/wont we. This is more a discussion about the opposing references and what we take from them. I can provide those references if you'd like. Casey boy (talk) 18:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

There have been official statements from Microsoft that there won't be an upgrade. There are hundreds and hundreds of recent news articles that cover this.--Lester 10:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't believe that's true. We have two(?) employees who have said no. But no official statement. In fact, I believe the official line is wait until the Mix conference. The "hundreds and hundreds of recent news articles" all tend to cite the same source i.e. one MS employee and not an official press release. Casey boy (talk) 18:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
There are hundreds. But I only have time to quote you just one: Engadget.--Lester 23:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I think that is a reliable source for reference now since Joe Balfiore is the perfect employee to know. I personally think that this should replace the previous reference. Casey boy (talk) 09:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Criticism[edit]

I found many of the criticisms either irrelevant, or mildly to mostly untrue. I tried to remove, and leave reasons for such parts, but those changes have been reverted. How exactly am i supposed to proceed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.116.8.41 (talk) 08:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree to 145.116.8.41. The "Criticism" is ridiculous. Strangely, there is no corresponding criticism in the iOS article, although, as we all know, iOS doesn't have a file explorer at all. So it would be more just, if someone either adds the same argument as "criticism" to the iOS article, or simply removes that point, or, even better, adds a section "advantages", where one could mention that Windows Mobile DOES have a file explorer, in contrast to iOS. It can even be extended by using the "file explorer extension", which is freeware and only has a few kb. Here's the link: http://www.geocities.co.jp/SiliconValley-Cupertino/2039/

Next point: "Many Windows Mobile business applications were designed for a stylus-pen input, and are difficult or impossible to use on a capacitative multi-touch screen." Thats only a part of the truth. The only WinMob device with a capacitive screen is the HTC HD2. But it allows the user to use the multitouch gesture (zoom in), to magnify parts of the screen by the factor 4. This eliminates the problem of "too small" buttons which may occur in some apps.

"Several analysts from both Gartner and J.Gold Associates have expressed concern about the long-term future of Windows Mobile". Obviously, there are no new devices running on WinMob. One of the latest, the HD2, can run several other OS. But who cares about Gartner looking in the future? If I say "iOS doesn't have a future, because people will start to hate the closed system compared to Android", then I might be right or wrong, but why should anybody include that under "criticism" of iOS?

"Windows Mobile 6.5.x was based on the Windows CE 5.2 kernel, the same kernel that was running in Windows Mobile 5.0 in 2004.". Thats right, but again, what's the problem? Windows 7 is based on Windows NT, so technically it has an about 18 years old code base. Nevertheless, it's a good, fast and stable OS which has received fairly good reviews. Newer is not always better. By the way, it's rather a "neutral" point than a disadvantage, it might even be good, because it ensures compatibility with old apps. Just like Windows 7 runs more or less every Windows program which is newer than, say 15 years (everything newer than DOS runs without emulation, or with compatibility mode). The brand new Windows Phone 7 in contrast, of course, is not compatible with old software any longer. 95.91.180.78 (talk) 12:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and there's one more thing ;-): you can't "criticize" Windows Mobile for the lack of new software. Unfortunately it's true that i.e. Skype is no longer developped for WM, as well as many others (for instance Google Maps, ICQ). But is that WinMob's fault? The reason is certainly not that WM is so bad, but rather the small market share [similar situation as WebOS: powerful operating system, but consequently ignored by developers, because "the winner takes it all" (iOS, Android)]. By the way, even if there is no App Store for WinMob with 300'000'000'000 apps, most of which only open a website, with some searching I found everything I ever needed (I also have an Android device for comparison). And why does Linux not have a "Criticism" section where s.o. mentions a couple of popular Windows applications for which no Linux version exists?178.26.98.69 (talk) 20:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Please distinguish between well-researched organizational journalism from opinionated individual hand-waving[edit]

A statement such as "The Washington Post said..." implies that the assertion has some credibility because it came from a source with a good reputation. Let's not use this type of statement to mislead the reader.

The Article quotes well-known periodicals such as the New York Times and the Washington Post. However, some of the references are really to individual non-fact-checked postings that probably do not reflect the periodical's own journalistic standards. Probably the most extreme of these is:

The Washington Post said Windows Mobile is "bleeding market share in the space, and the future looks grim." It said that Google is using Android to "kill" Windows Mobile.

The Washington Post said no such thing; it merely incorporated in its pages a blog entry from TechCrunch, and said blog entry originated outside the Washington Post via syndication and contained opnionated individual hand-waving with no reliable methodology behind it.

In such cases, it would be better to refer to the individual rather than to the organization when referencing such postings, so they do not seem to be more credible than they really are. Just because a respected periodical happened to include somebody's opinion (often via syndication) doesn't make that opinion a reliable source. Rahul (talk) 22:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

All news is syndicated. All news organizations rely on syndicated and wire services, such as AP and Reuters. They all use outside sources. It's up to the newspaper itself to choose reliable sources. When the newspaper puts that information under its banner, whatever the source, of course it gives the information credibility, but that's what we expect from newspapers with a trusted reputation. TechCrunch is also a well known publication in technology circles. I think the citations should remain as attributed to the major newspapers, as it also gives an indication of the coverage that the information received in the mainstream press.--Lester 23:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong with the date?[edit]

There is a forward-slash (/) before the Latest stable release date. Lately I've been noticing this on a lot of articles. What's going on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTechFan (talkcontribs) 01:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

This article needs an update[edit]

Windows phone has changed its basic colour to orange. See [8]. --ZirconiumTwice (talk) 05:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Windows phone[edit]

When I search for Windows Phone(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_phone), I'm being redirected to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Mobile. In my opinion I should be redirected to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Phone_7. I never thing of Windows Mobile as Windows Phone and I do not think I am that special.

A disambiguation page would be better that a redirect to Windows Phone 7 --Chris Ssk talk 17:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Microsoft has caused this confusion by changing the names of its products all the time. Earlier this year, Microsoft announced that version 6.5.x and below were to be renamed "Windows Phone Classic". It gets impossible to track what the current name is! --Lester 05:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
So, lets try to make this clear: In 2009, Microsoft introduced a marketing umbrella called "Windows phone"(With a lower-case "p" in Phone). It was just a name, not an operating system. The name Windows Mobile 6.5 was kept and sits under the "Windows phone" name. Now, they want to rename the marketing umbrella for Windows phone running on Windows Mobile 6.5 as "Windows Phone Classic". Yeah, its confusing. But I think "Windows Phone Classic" should specifically redirect to this article and "Windows Phone" should redirect to Windows Phone 7. This article is about Windows Mobile, the operating system, not a marketing term, whereas Windows Phone 7 is specifically the name of an operating system. We could get into a debate about why "7" is in the name "Windows Phone 7", but its clear that its a marketing thing and that Microsoft just wants to tie it in with Windows 7 and try to have a cohesive product line-up across the company, and make it easier for consumers, who don't care what the name of an OS is, to instantly figure out what "Windows Phone 7" probably is. --Interframe (talk) 22:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

"Phase out to" make no sense[edit]

If Windows Mobile is being phased out except in certain specialty markets, that's what the Wiki page needs to say. That idea cannot be abbreviated to "phased out to certain specialty markets." Those words just don't mean anything. 68.89.149.2 (talk) 22:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

File:O2xda2i.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Icon Now Commons orange.svg An image used in this article, File:O2xda2i.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Missing details; out of date.[edit]

out of date - most recent references were created 2009

Does not list Palm Threo which was a popular WinCE Phone.

Market share History - - Manufacturer Nokia created Symbian, a windowed version of its 90's era DOS replacement, and Nokia manufactures ~ 50% of World handsets. However (not shown because this article is so out of date) Nokia has contracted with Microsoft to use Windows Phone in Nokia's Smartphones.

Possible trends - - section title indicates it is speculative opinion not factual. Section should be deleted. Software development - - Earlier Wince 3,4,5 don't require Visual Studio and can program in C. Was looking up when Wince (Windows mobile) stopped in Flash execution, didn't find inthis article. Criticism - - section title indicates it is speculative opinion not factual. Hardware ignorant statements: resistive screens do not require a stylus, however even with more recent capacitive screens the size of one's fingers makes a difference in accurate determination of screen position, a personal issue that I have with my 2011 iPhone. As phone usage grew much faster for women and teenagers, versus the traditionally male Pocket PC market, this seems to a poorly thought out "criticism". BTW some people wear gloves for work (e.g. cleanroom) and can't understand why capacitive touchscreen won't work. The Qualcomm Snapdragon comes in single core and dual core versions (other mfg also make dual core) and ability to use the SECOND core is limited in older OS. Note that the age of this article (2009) does not include that Qualcomm has since created (2009) platform Hardware Abstraction Layer resolving this issue. The fact that Samsung, an ARM manufacturer with its own HAL, predominantly (2009-2010) uses its own OS for cheap smartphones like Blackjack series and Apple IOS at high end. Windows and Android phones are predominantly (in 2010-Q2,2011) built on Qualcomm HAL used by HTC, LG, Acer, etc.

Shjacks45 (talk) 19:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

resource[edit]

Nokia Preps Return to U.S.; T-Mobile USA Expected to Offer New Windows-Powered Lumia Phone by WILL CONNORS, CHRISTOPHER LAWTON and SPENCER E. ANTE Wall Street Journal December 9, 2011, excerpt ...

Nokia Corp. is gearing up to introduce the U.S. to its first device powered by Microsoft Corp.'s latest Windows software for smartphones, an attempt by the Finnish handset maker to break into the lucrative American market. The debut will come next week when T-Mobile USA plans to announce that it will distribute the device, called the Lumia, at an event it is co-hosting with Nokia in New York, said a person familiar with the matter.

99.181.136.158 (talk) 00:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Microsoft Kin[edit]

Why excactly is there such a large section dedicated to this? It never ran Windows Mobile. 74.47.110.120 (talk) 22:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Windows Phone 7 is NOT the successor of Windows Mobile 6.5[edit]

The successor of Windows Mobile 6.5 is Windows Embedded Handheld 6.5. Usually reffered to as WEH 6.5. Most code written for Windows Mobile will work quite happily on the new WEH 6.5 which is why it is best suited to enterprise enviroments where the likes of Motorola Solutions and Intermec operate.

See http://www.microsoft.com/windowsembedded/en-us/evaluate/windows-embedded-handheld.aspx for some clarity from Microsoft.

Windows Phone 7 is a totally new operating system from Microsoft that has no backwards compatibility with anything prior. It is clearly targeted at consumer mobile phones and designed to support fashionable hardware and consumer trends. The real question is why they refer to it as version 7 when it is clearly version 1.0. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.188.185.226 (talk) 04:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Sub linked version articles have identical content[edit]

I've noticed that each version of the Windows Phone has its own separate article, each with identical content. Is this a standard practice somewhere here, or should the separate articles be removed? Wikidamo (talk) 04:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi.
The policy here is Wikipedia:Summary style. Otherwise, no.
Oh, and please post your messages at the bottom. (You can use "New section" button.)
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 11:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks... Moved my comment / section... So should these duplicate stubs be removed, or is someone likely to update them with more information some day? E.g This is the same summary content on the base page and appears to have been originally a hash tag redirect in 2008, then more recently this year, someone pasted the summary from here... Wikidamo (talk) 13:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Just making sure that things are summarized and there are {{Main}} tags is enough. See other summary style articles like Microsoft Windows, Command & Conquer, etc. for inspiration. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 21:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Delete redundant articles?[edit]

Windows mobile versions 2003, 5.0, 6.0, 6.1, 6.5 and Pocket PC 2002 all have there own small articles (linked to in this article), however the information therein is in every case merely a copy-pasted version of their paragraphs on this article, lacking even an introductory statement such as "was a mobile phone operating system". Surely all six should be deleted (and redirected to this article) since they are just duplications of what is already on this article? I posted this here as opposed to on those articles to avoid duplicating this request 6 times on talk pages probably rarely visited!--90.199.141.31 (talk) 02:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. These articles don't qualify for outright deletion, as they are the result of page splits and they are plausible redirects. (You can see the policy at WP:A10 and WP:DP if you are interested.) Also, with software as well-known as Windows Mobile, the individual versions are very likely to pass the general notability guideline, and if they do there is no need to redirect them back to this page. (See WP:42 for a concise explanation of the general notability guideline.) However, the pages could be redirected if the consensus of editors here is that the topics would be better covered on this page rather than in stand-alone articles. I suggest that you advertise this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Microsoft and wait a week or so to see what people say. If, after a week, there is a general consensus that the pages should be redirected, you can go ahead and do it. On the other hand, you could simply choose to expand/improve the individual articles, which would also solve the redundancy problem. If you have any questions about this, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Best — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 12:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Windows Phone[edit]

I realise there is a link to the Windows Phone article, but as someone mentioned once, maybe there should be a disambiguation or see also section making it clear to people like me that there are two distinct flavours... The discontinued windows mobile and new windows phone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.144.40.236 (talk) 22:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)