wot are the differences between Smartphone 2002 and WM 2003?

[Guest londonlad]

dont say:

1.more stable - thats a crap excuse to give it a new name, shold be standard.

2. bluetooth - really could have released it in the original spv if they wanted!

so what else is new? :?

[Guest mcwarre]

dont say: 

1.more stable - thats a crap excuse to give it a new name, shold be standard.

2. bluetooth - really could have released it in the original spv if they wanted!

so what else is new? :?

Errm. Couldn't release bluetooth with 2002 as the OS didn't support it. It is the second generation OS for smartphone a logical step. You might as well say 'what is the difference between M$2000 and XP' 'none cos they should have released XP first'. Dream on fella.....

I for one welcome a newer OS; it will be better than the first as the 2002 release was (quite) buggy and the majority of this should be fixed in 2003 (sms counter for one)

[Guest morpheus2702]

I'm not sure that anyone here as got any first-hand, long-term (i.e. longer than an hour) experience of using WM2003?

As far as I am aware, there is just the Canary design released to the Chinese market that is running WM2003, though the SPC C200 is imminent.

Can expect a better MMS client in addition to what's already been mentioned.

[Guest Gorskar]

SP2003 (or windows mobile 2003 smartphone edition) will feature a better browser with support for frames and CSS, + better options for fitting the page to the screen.

Another (BIG) advantage is that it supports .net CF, which is a heck of a lot easier to code for than C++, (although I'm no programmer myself) which should mean we see a lot more software being released.

[Guest Pagemakers]

SP2003 (or windows mobile 2003 smartphone edition) will feature a better browser with support for frames and CSS, + better options for fitting the page to the screen.

Hmm. I posted the frames question on the MS Newsgroups sometime ago and Neil himself answered and said it will NOT support frames.

[Guest Gorskar]

oh... my bad then.

[Guest mhm]

I think the .NET CF support sounds promising, as I've heard as well that it is alot easier to produce software as compared to evc.