Yeah, and you guys forget, hardware will always get cheaper with the progression of time. Software on the otherhand, doesn't seem to drop at the same rate.
The kind of hardware NEEDED to pump out the desired effects Windows Phone 7 series offers should be quite substantial, and obviously Microsoft doesn't want the Vista deja vu; where customers complained and whined day in day out about the hardware insufficiency.
If people are willing to fork out $xxx for an iPhone, then the same could be said for a high end WinPho device.
And as for market segments and what not, look at the HTC Diamond 1.
Good looking phone, good idea on the interface. But the hardware was completely underpowered and utilizing the device to it's full potential was nigh on impossible. The successor was much faster and better equipped. Hopefully, Microsoft will be firm on its regulations and this time, pump out a device worthy of the wait we've been made to sit through.
I could be wrong, but it doesn't sound like these specs are the minimum required to run winmo 7, it sounds more like it's Microsoft saying to HTC, Acer et al- "if you're going to make a winmo 7 phone, this is what we're telling you we WANT the minimum spec to be". ie, it might run on a 600MHZ processor, but Microsoft think it would be so slow that it may damage the brand they're trying to establish. Android's a good argument for this. Great OS when backed up by the hardware, but budget models (tmobile pulse, tattoo etc...) with their lower spec just don't do the android brand any favours. Makes sense if this is the fresh start Microsoft are looking for for Winmo.
Why are peopele always complaining?! I nominate the human being for the most dissatisied creatur in the univers! Ok, if the minimum cpu requirements were 520mhz, I'm sure you'd say, whaaat just 520 oh we are living in 2010, just 520. And if the minimum for display were iPhone ish resolution on a 3" display, you'd also say, whaat just 3", but this or that phone has 3,5". So, STOP WHINING AND COMPLAINING, you stupid whiners!!!! WP7, I'm awaiting you !!!
This may simply mean that micosoft foresees the future of Pocket Pcs with the likes of processors such as the intel atom and that too in nearer future. There is already an LG phone powered with an atom on the way. :)
1Ghz cpu is " Minimum requirement " . I can assure you this OS will be slow and lagger just like windows VISTa .
from my modest experience with windows, what MS tell for minimum requirements is about 80% of optimal hradware platform. That means WiPho7 is due Christmass not beacause is not ready, but because Hardware is not ready. So - prepare your bucks for dualcore ARMs :-)
I'll stay with android or wm 6.5.3
guyz it all business and its sure thts it sounds like windows vista requirements its just that they want us to buy new cell phones thats it so tht there pockets are full and ours empty man tht sucks !!!!!!
shucks, now i really wont be able to upgrade my motorola a3100 to win7
finally High Res and Graphics is mandatory
even though 1GHZ is a good minimum but 800 is not bad, like the HTC Legend, that could be enought for a budget WinPh 7
but i guess MS wants nothing less than a X10 or Desire to inhibit WinPho 7
Well, I knew the hardware requirement would be high, but I didn't expect them to be that high. I mean, it's just a mobile phone OS, but the requirements are more like a netbook OS. Do we really need that much horse power to get our phone "just" to work?
That way Microsoft have excluded a large consumer segment, who might have considered the new OS. But with these specs, we are definitely taking big bucks here.
Conratulations MS, you just managed to make a large user segment upset, because they were waiting patiently to replace their sucking WinMo 6 with this. Now it's out of their reach.
paulo, 24 Feb 2010i dont know much about windows mobile but this sounds to me a bit like windows vista, minimum ... moreMicrosoft has since the early windows version with most of their new versions been moving on the edge of the limits of hardware requirements for the OS alone!
It's similar to the megapixel race: Sell the customers something that SOUNDS like it is good, and don't care if it is useful in practise.
The amazing thing is that we actually buy the s**t...
i dont know much about windows mobile but this sounds to me a bit like windows vista, minimum hardware set too high for what's on the market??? if 1 GHz is the minimum, what's the recommended? or does it not work like that?
SR, 24 Feb 2010If 3.6" is minimum screen requiement this means the on screen icons are of specific resol... moreI totally agree!
A requirement for the resolution is fine, but for the screen size???
The only existing phone in the gsmarena database with a screen that HUGE, and phone width less then 55mm is
(And a few old phones with less then 480 pixel resolution on the short edge, LG BL40 and nokia 9300(i) wider han 2:1 )
I do absolutely NOT want to carry a brick that is 55-60mm or worse. Even my old old nokia 8110 wasn't that wide...
Dan the Man, 24 Feb 2010Specifying the minimum requirements is crucial to make sure that the performance of the device... moreIf 3.6" is minimum screen requiement this means the on screen icons are of specific resolution and on smaller screen with same resolution they'll be smaller than what Microsoft wants... But why does everybody is making larger screen devices? What about pocket-ability? HDs and HD2s are what Windows Phones are gonna be...
Specifying the minimum requirements is crucial to make sure that the performance of the device is running optimally. Screen resolution should also be restricted to a single setting to encourage uniformity and standardization among third-party app developers. Apps will be specified to the desired resolution assuring similar UI experience across different devices and less time is consumed by the app upon launching from the system since it no longer needs to detect the device resolution for rendering. the drawback of this approach is the obvious limitation it would entail to treo-like formfactors that cannot adopt a 21:9 ratio display.