Guest Pondrew Posted May 28, 2004 Report Share Posted May 28, 2004 Hmmm. Must say I find it doubtful that the MPX100 will be any lower spec then this (as people seems to be suggesting). The way I see it they will more then likely just be differentiated by design (i.e. one candybar and one clamshell). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest AvWijk Posted May 28, 2004 Report Share Posted May 28, 2004 AvWijk: Sorry if I came off as doubting You but I really want to believe that the MPx220 will have the new screen resolution. Although I have a hard time believing that it will actually ship without SE. Don't trust on GSMarena.com theyre talking about 165x220 pix, there'e make more mistakes :roll: And what's the sense of 165x220 pixels, 11 pixels less than 176x220! To get 165x220 they should produce a new type of screen and why not use the mpx200's one. Talking about the mpx200, the mpx220's screen would be a downgrade to this! Even compared to the screen resolution of the original SPV which is also 176x220. Very stupid. And 100% of the current smartphone programs are optimized for 176x220. So the chance that de mpx220 is getting al 165x220 pixel screen is 0,0. Microsoft Smartphone OS's have only one resolution and that is 176x220, otherwise the menu structure wont fit simply enough, 165x220 pixels don't meet the requirements. There is a chance that it will ship without SE because this version was just released recently, and Moto is about to launch the model on the market nearly. It takes a lot of time to bug-fix and to optimize the current packed OS, and look at the mpx200 -> They didn't install the 2003 version on it while the mpx200 was released later than the SPV e200 for instance. I really really hope Microsoft is now on time and were not getting an old version of Windows Mobile on the mpx220! Currently the Sagem My S-7 hás the SE version while the Motorola Mpx100 has not. But we know more about this one already and Motorola introduced the Mpx100 earlier, as it was on the Cebit, mpx220 not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest [email protected] Posted May 28, 2004 Report Share Posted May 28, 2004 By new screen resolution I mean QVGA 320*240, supported by WM2003 SE for Smartphone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest midnight Posted May 28, 2004 Report Share Posted May 28, 2004 hehe, gotta correct a few people here..... there are two screen resolutions for the Microsoft Smartphone, 176 x 220 and 240 x 320 (supported by WM2K3SE), as far as I know, NONE of the announced phones so far have 240 x 320. i also believe that the MPx220 could well ship Windows Mobile 2003 SE, earlier prototypes where sent out with just Windows Mobile 2003, but that doesnt mean they wont use 2k3SE (in fact it makes more sense to use SE as its now available) Also, Windows Mobile 2003 may well be capable of running Java, but it isnt built in on most of the current Windows Mobile 2003 devices, however, most, if not all, of the new MS Smartphone devices will have Java, to be honest I dont really know why, because i'm certain that MS would rather push .NET, not Java, I would presume its the carriers wanting to get this into the phones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest morpheus2702 Posted May 28, 2004 Report Share Posted May 28, 2004 AvWijk - cheers for the info! :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pondrew Posted May 28, 2004 Report Share Posted May 28, 2004 Still Midnight, Motorola have been seen to be conservative with their choice of released o/s (the MPX200 having a bug fixed Smartphone 2002 for example). Could be the same again (shipping both the MPX100 and 220 with a bug fixed Windows Mobile 2003). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PsychoDave Posted May 28, 2004 Report Share Posted May 28, 2004 Wow interestin stuff. Lots of info doing the rounds. I fancy one of these but then again I change my mind as often as I change my socks. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest midnight Posted May 28, 2004 Report Share Posted May 28, 2004 pondrew, very true, but what you have to remember is SE isnt a whole new OS, its a modified 2k3 OS with hires and landscape support + lots of bug fixes. And so it makes sense to use SE, not because of the screen orientation (that is PPC only, not Smartphone) and not because of hires screens (cos as i said, none of the announced are 240 x 320), but purely cos it fixes bugs in the original 2K3 os. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pondrew Posted May 28, 2004 Report Share Posted May 28, 2004 Oh, right you are. I was thinking it would be more major (and potentially bugged). Sort of along the lines of Windows ME when it came out on desktop. Maybe Windows 98SE is a more appropriate comparison (in that it just improved upon Win98 without anything too drastic). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest midnight Posted May 28, 2004 Report Share Posted May 28, 2004 correct :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest AvWijk Posted May 29, 2004 Report Share Posted May 29, 2004 AvWijk - cheers for the info! :lol: yw :) Perhaps Motorola integrates WM 2003 SE on their mpx220's because its indeed bugfixed more than WM 2003. But the diffrence is not to big though, both can provide enough speed, JAVA+bluetooth support and stability. Like Windows 98 - Windows 98 SE, there aren't much diffrences between those either. And what do you think about the licenses Motorola bought? I guess that is an big administrative job and they're better optimize WM 2003 for the full 100% as the WM2003 SE for 75%. Since Windows Mobile 2003 is older, Motorola could have spended more time in bugfixing it. Also the functions of WM 2003 SE are not nessesary for the mpx220, as the phone don't support landscape mode or 320*240 resolutions. (hehe why couldn't they steal some Sharp GX30 TFT 262k QVGA displays) So the chance that the mpx220 comes with WM2003 is big in my opinon. @ midnight, you better want to install an fully patched Windows 98 instead of an newer Windows ME with 4359,90843,345 new bugs :lol: I don't know if something has to do with this but Windows 98 requires less hardware than ME and it's a better Operating System. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest midnight Posted May 29, 2004 Report Share Posted May 29, 2004 errr, no, but i'd rather have windows 98 second edition :) as i already stated, windows mobile 2003 second edition is not a whole new OS, it is a modified and bug fixed version of windows mobile 2003, your comparison should be between windows 98 and windows 98 second edition, not windows 98 and windows millenium Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Monolithix [MVP] Posted May 29, 2004 Report Share Posted May 29, 2004 Personally i'd rather have WinXP pro...but thats just me ;p Also, is it just me that thinks the 220 looks ugly then? I hate that block sticking out of the top of the base section... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pierre Posted May 30, 2004 Report Share Posted May 30, 2004 Does it have no external antenna? I'm also not sure I would like a clamshell phone. Posted from my SmartPhone! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pondrew Posted May 30, 2004 Report Share Posted May 30, 2004 You're not alone Mono, but I wasn't gonna say anything because it's common knowledge I don't like clamshell phones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest AvWijk Posted May 30, 2004 Report Share Posted May 30, 2004 Personally i'd rather have WinXP pro...but thats just me ;p Also, is it just me that thinks the 220 looks ugly then? I hate that block sticking out of the top of the base section... Ofcourse, XP is far better, but I was talking about the diffrences between 98-ME. Alright ontopic, I don't think the block is too bad, better than a flagpole antenna like the Samsung SGH i250. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Monolithix [MVP] Posted May 30, 2004 Report Share Posted May 30, 2004 Sorry, i was being pedantic :lol: Personally for the sake of 300kpix in the camera i find the 100 a lot more appealling, and i'm not fussed if its candy bar or flip. No-one is using their phones for professional pics, and the specs seem fairly similar bar the camera. 100 all the way for me :) Posted from my SmartPhone! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pondrew Posted May 30, 2004 Report Share Posted May 30, 2004 Ditto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jasonkruys Posted May 30, 2004 Report Share Posted May 30, 2004 Sorry, i was being pedantic :lol: Personally for the sake of 300kpix in the camera i find the 100 a lot more appealling, and i'm not fussed if its candy bar or flip. No-one is using their phones for professional pics, and the specs seem fairly similar bar the camera. 100 all the way for me :lol: Posted from my SmartPhone! I feel much the same, but I am an impatient bugger and don't think I can possibly wait for the 220 to come out before having a breakdown, let alone the 100 :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gorskar Posted May 31, 2004 Report Share Posted May 31, 2004 I'll be sure to grab one of these if the price isnt too astronomical :) I dont really mind which of this 220 or 100 I get - they both look very nice, I'd probably get the cheaper one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fozzie Posted May 31, 2004 Report Share Posted May 31, 2004 Also, is it just me that thinks the 220 looks ugly then? I hate that block sticking out of the top of the base section... Going on spec alone, I thought that the 220 was the next phone for me. Having handled it at the last Meet, there's now way I'm getting one now. Ugly as sin, bits sticking out all over the place and feels like a kiddies toy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest midnight Posted May 31, 2004 Report Share Posted May 31, 2004 the 220 was at the meet? how come i didnt see it :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fozzie Posted May 31, 2004 Report Share Posted May 31, 2004 the 220 was at the meet? how come i didnt see it :) Too busy getting thanked for Eclipse? :lol: I really wasn't impressed with 220. Great spec but let down by its' form. (I didn't like the keyboard layout either - wasn't very clear). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest kyrkesmith Posted May 31, 2004 Report Share Posted May 31, 2004 Are you sure you're not chatting about the MPx (formerly MPx300) that I understand was at the meet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest morpheus2702 Posted May 31, 2004 Report Share Posted May 31, 2004 It certainly is no dainty beauty in the way that say, most Samsungs are, but I'd like to think it has a look of 'menacing functionality' about it. Compare and contrast the C500 when it comes to 'ugly'! :wink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts