Ultimately, XNA is still .NET, meaning that it's analogous to Java apps on Android. The performance is quite good, but it's probably not AS good as native code would be.
This is the one big thing that will make or break any phone running this OS for me. I currently have an iPhone and, while the phone is great and I do love it, I can't STAND the fact that I have to have a frigging data plan tied to the phone. You couple that with the fact that most places where I would use any "data" feature I wind up switching over to wifi, either at Starbucks or Borders, mainly due to the lackluster 3G coverage and signal in the Bay Area.
You give me the ability to get a phone running this OS without having to have a data plan and I'll get one in a heartbeat. Otherwise, I'll stick with my original plan by switching over to a iPod Touch and a basic cellphone when my iPhone contract is up later this year.
Of course. Microsoft isn't just manufacturing one model of the phone. You will still get bundling of some phones with contracts, unfortunately not an illegal practice, but you will be able to buy unlocked phones just as you can now.
However data connections are pretty useful, if you don't like contracts fair enough but I would try to find a pay as you go provider.
The problem is that even if you get an unlocked phone most providers will force you to sign up with all of the data plan baggage that goes with it. I was considering unlocking my iPhone about a year ago but I spoke to AT&T and Verizon and they both refused to let me sign my phone up without it.
I even went so far as to try asking them both if there was a smartphone that you could get WITHOUT signing up for an expensive plan and both said no giving some bunk answer about "x phone needed it" which considering the ones I would choose would have wifi enabled on them I was'nt buying it. My guess is that, for whatever reason, the handset maker in cahoots with the providers setup the phones in such a way that they "phone home" every so often setting up the "need" for the data plan.
If these companies want smartphones to take off they need to either make the data plans cheaper or give us the ability to turn off the "phone home" feature so we can use the phone as a phone without an expensive data plan. -_-
You can always get a basic phone plan using a cheapo phone, and then swap over the SIMS card. I'm able to swap my SIMS card between a basic nom-smart Samsung phone and my iPhone.
Verizon has recently started requiring a $10 a month data plan on non-smartphones which didn't used to require a data plan, so obviously they are just looking to collect as much money as they can. I have heard that on business accounts the data plan is optional, but I do not know for sure.
Developers, developers, developers, except for developers that don't want to share their code with MS or use the app store!
Seriously, this is one of the main reasons the enterprise uses win mobile; you can create and install your own software without getting 'approval' from big brother MS.
In addition, if you use an app that you made that provides your company a competitive advantage, why in the world would you want to share it with your competitors? Not all software developers write software to sell!
They are going to drive many customers straight into RIM's and Google's, or even Palm's arms.
Paul Thurott seems to have some good news for you.
"And this summer--I'm thinking around the time of TechEd 2010 in June--Microsoft will announce that businesses can deploy internal Windows Phone applications privately using an as-yet unnamed "common distribution system." (I'm guessing this means WSUS or System Center Configuration Manager.)"
Awesome! So all I have to do is purchase a Windows Server license, and probably some other Microsoft platform/framework/service license to install on it, and probably client licenses for each phone needing to connect, and ...
Well this is a system for companies to install their "Special programs". If you only want to install it on a few phones, you can just use the "beta solution".
So I cannot develop my own personal software and install it on the phone?
Everything has to go through their approval process and be placed ont the app store?
Please tell me this isnt the case. What about the thousands of developers that want to develop their own app for whatever reason but have absolutely no desire to make it public?
For the specific scenario of a developer wanting to write a program and install it on their phone, this should be doable already. Development is done using Visual Studio (express version is free), which allows for USB deployment of applications for debugging and development. Since I don't have any hardware to try it out with, I'm making an assumption that a deployed app will still run without the debugger attached.
Given that the basic functionality exists, I would not be surprised to see someone release a utility to deploy compiled applications via USB. If there is enough demand, I expect Microsoft to release something aside from it's enterprise business offering.
If MS doesn't allow you to run private enterprise apps, then they are really missing a big chunk of their market. I can easily see an inventory program that would really benefit from GPS and the ability to sync to a server immediately. At the same time, I wouldn't want that app to be up for purchase by my competition. If you could develop privately, you could really boost your small business.
I'm still doing digging on the subject, but I asked some of the XNA reps/devs about that out of curiosity.
They mentioned that on virtually all the ARM SoC the choice of OpenGL versus Direct X is entirely just a matter of drivers. In fact, they reiterated a few times that they consider the OpenGL implementation a bit "academic" and slower than the Direct3D/DirectX APIs they have written.
I was puzzled about that too since most of the SoC is advertised as having some level of OpenGL compatibility. There's also some confusion about what shader model is supported; I'm told in the current release there aren't any programmable shaders, but that's not to say it can't happen.
There is no shader support at release, but it's expected later down the pipe.
At launch, they added configurable shade effect to the basic ones. reports said that it was a good enough to make nice looking scenes, but don't quote me on that :)
Really looking forward to some Anand-quality coverage of Android. I'm rather surprised that the yet-unlaunched Winmo7 and the floundering (though exceptional) WebOs have gotten Anand's and yet Android has not.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
24 Comments
Back to Article
Guspaz - Tuesday, March 16, 2010 - link
Ultimately, XNA is still .NET, meaning that it's analogous to Java apps on Android. The performance is quite good, but it's probably not AS good as native code would be.medi01 - Tuesday, March 16, 2010 - link
JIT compilers theoretically are producing faster code than native compilers.But android's Java VM has no JIT. I wonder if MS W7 has it.
PsychoPif - Wednesday, March 17, 2010 - link
It is the .Net Compact Framework, so yes, JIT compiler.But don't quote me on that.
pjladyfox - Tuesday, March 16, 2010 - link
This is the one big thing that will make or break any phone running this OS for me. I currently have an iPhone and, while the phone is great and I do love it, I can't STAND the fact that I have to have a frigging data plan tied to the phone. You couple that with the fact that most places where I would use any "data" feature I wind up switching over to wifi, either at Starbucks or Borders, mainly due to the lackluster 3G coverage and signal in the Bay Area.You give me the ability to get a phone running this OS without having to have a data plan and I'll get one in a heartbeat. Otherwise, I'll stick with my original plan by switching over to a iPod Touch and a basic cellphone when my iPhone contract is up later this year.
CSMR - Tuesday, March 16, 2010 - link
Of course. Microsoft isn't just manufacturing one model of the phone. You will still get bundling of some phones with contracts, unfortunately not an illegal practice, but you will be able to buy unlocked phones just as you can now.However data connections are pretty useful, if you don't like contracts fair enough but I would try to find a pay as you go provider.
pjladyfox - Tuesday, March 16, 2010 - link
The problem is that even if you get an unlocked phone most providers will force you to sign up with all of the data plan baggage that goes with it. I was considering unlocking my iPhone about a year ago but I spoke to AT&T and Verizon and they both refused to let me sign my phone up without it.I even went so far as to try asking them both if there was a smartphone that you could get WITHOUT signing up for an expensive plan and both said no giving some bunk answer about "x phone needed it" which considering the ones I would choose would have wifi enabled on them I was'nt buying it. My guess is that, for whatever reason, the handset maker in cahoots with the providers setup the phones in such a way that they "phone home" every so often setting up the "need" for the data plan.
If these companies want smartphones to take off they need to either make the data plans cheaper or give us the ability to turn off the "phone home" feature so we can use the phone as a phone without an expensive data plan. -_-
kmmatney - Tuesday, March 16, 2010 - link
You can always get a basic phone plan using a cheapo phone, and then swap over the SIMS card. I'm able to swap my SIMS card between a basic nom-smart Samsung phone and my iPhone.strikeback03 - Tuesday, March 16, 2010 - link
Verizon has recently started requiring a $10 a month data plan on non-smartphones which didn't used to require a data plan, so obviously they are just looking to collect as much money as they can. I have heard that on business accounts the data plan is optional, but I do not know for sure.braveneworld - Tuesday, March 16, 2010 - link
Developers, developers, developers, except for developers that don't want to share their code with MS or use the app store!Seriously, this is one of the main reasons the enterprise uses win mobile; you can create and install your own software without getting 'approval' from big brother MS.
In addition, if you use an app that you made that provides your company a competitive advantage, why in the world would you want to share it with your competitors? Not all software developers write software to sell!
They are going to drive many customers straight into RIM's and Google's, or even Palm's arms.
zicoz - Tuesday, March 16, 2010 - link
Paul Thurott seems to have some good news for you."And this summer--I'm thinking around the time of TechEd 2010 in June--Microsoft will announce that businesses can deploy internal Windows Phone applications privately using an as-yet unnamed "common distribution system." (I'm guessing this means WSUS or System Center Configuration Manager.)"
Tanclearas - Wednesday, March 17, 2010 - link
Awesome! So all I have to do is purchase a Windows Server license, and probably some other Microsoft platform/framework/service license to install on it, and probably client licenses for each phone needing to connect, and ...zicoz - Wednesday, March 17, 2010 - link
Well this is a system for companies to install their "Special programs". If you only want to install it on a few phones, you can just use the "beta solution".cknobman - Tuesday, March 16, 2010 - link
So I cannot develop my own personal software and install it on the phone?Everything has to go through their approval process and be placed ont the app store?
Please tell me this isnt the case. What about the thousands of developers that want to develop their own app for whatever reason but have absolutely no desire to make it public?
Im hoping I misread somewhere.
Reklats - Wednesday, March 17, 2010 - link
For the specific scenario of a developer wanting to write a program and install it on their phone, this should be doable already. Development is done using Visual Studio (express version is free), which allows for USB deployment of applications for debugging and development. Since I don't have any hardware to try it out with, I'm making an assumption that a deployed app will still run without the debugger attached.Given that the basic functionality exists, I would not be surprised to see someone release a utility to deploy compiled applications via USB. If there is enough demand, I expect Microsoft to release something aside from it's enterprise business offering.
MonkeyPaw - Tuesday, March 16, 2010 - link
If MS doesn't allow you to run private enterprise apps, then they are really missing a big chunk of their market. I can easily see an inventory program that would really benefit from GPS and the ability to sync to a server immediately. At the same time, I wouldn't want that app to be up for purchase by my competition. If you could develop privately, you could really boost your small business.straubs - Tuesday, March 16, 2010 - link
Not only that, but it costs $99 PER APP, in addition to the $99/year developer fee.http://developer.windowsphone.com/Help.aspx">http://developer.windowsphone.com/Help.aspx
zicoz - Tuesday, March 16, 2010 - link
I think I read somewhere that as a developer you can "unlock" x number of phones and install your programs directly.QuietOC - Tuesday, March 16, 2010 - link
"480 x 800 being 4:3 aspect ratio"800x480 should be a 5:3 aspect ratio.
nerdtalker - Tuesday, March 16, 2010 - link
Thanks, that's what I get for trying to do math late at night ;)Should be corrected soon!
Cheers,
Brian
HighTech4US - Tuesday, March 16, 2010 - link
Isn't the only SOC ARM design with GPU DirectX 9 acceleration the nVidia Tegra.nerdtalker - Tuesday, March 16, 2010 - link
I'm still doing digging on the subject, but I asked some of the XNA reps/devs about that out of curiosity.They mentioned that on virtually all the ARM SoC the choice of OpenGL versus Direct X is entirely just a matter of drivers. In fact, they reiterated a few times that they consider the OpenGL implementation a bit "academic" and slower than the Direct3D/DirectX APIs they have written.
I was puzzled about that too since most of the SoC is advertised as having some level of OpenGL compatibility. There's also some confusion about what shader model is supported; I'm told in the current release there aren't any programmable shaders, but that's not to say it can't happen.
PsychoPif - Wednesday, March 17, 2010 - link
There is no shader support at release, but it's expected later down the pipe.At launch, they added configurable shade effect to the basic ones. reports said that it was a good enough to make nice looking scenes, but don't quote me on that :)
deputc26 - Tuesday, March 16, 2010 - link
Really looking forward to some Anand-quality coverage of Android. I'm rather surprised that the yet-unlaunched Winmo7 and the floundering (though exceptional) WebOs have gotten Anand's and yet Android has not.Anand Lal Shimpi - Tuesday, March 16, 2010 - link
It's coming... :)Take care,
Anand