Windows Phone Beats 88% of Competitors in Speed Test

[watcha]

[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]And, by the way, nice trick turning the focus of the story from WP being the fastest handset in 88% of REAL WORLD tests, including against the iPhone with it's much advertised (mainly by you) fastest CPU/GPU combination - into a swinging dicks contest about who has the most Apps, well done, good job[/citation]

A lot of people care less about performance if there's less they can do with it.

As for describing it as a 'swinging dicks contest', I'm simply pointing out that it will suffer due to having less apps. Pretty obvious, and I even compared it to BOTH Android and Apple.

As for the actual 'real world' tests, carried out a massive 25 times, hand selected by Microsoft, the vast majority of which not involving the iPhone 4S, with the iPhone 4S beating it in one of them, out of ... 2? 3? Who knows, because they didn't publish it? Please.

lol

 

[alikum]

[citation][nom]watcha[/nom]A mobile operating system launch.1=2 is logical with sarcasmSo we're agreed Should I not take 'facts' seriously? Were they sarcastic facts? I didn't turn them into an argument, I put them into context, with more facts.I think it is you who has failed to grasp the bigger issue which pre-empts this whole rant. Please find anywhere in my comment to which 'you're wrong' was a reply, where I generalized 'all people'? And if you look, you'll realise I didn't, and your failure to notice that is why you're STILL not realising why saying 'not everybody wants apps' doesn't in any way contradict what I said. To reiterate, it doesn't even matter if 90% of people don't care about apps. If 10% of them do, the platform suffers as a proposition as a result of having fewer apps. It's very simple, and going on about people buying for different reasons means that the entire point escapes you. Which again, is why you were wrong to say I was wrong.Fantastic, my point all along.I agree you meant the whole statement. And I'm being nice, you don't even have to attack each sentence one by one (you know, specificity). But what you do have to prove is that something was wrong within that statement. I did not 'generalize people' at all - as I've already explained to you (3 times now). The fact that lower apps can be to the detriment of a platform as a proposition does not require or imply any generalisations at all. In fact, the only thing it implies, logically, is that at least SOME people care about apps. YOU would have to be generalizing to contradict that.Your figures were not disputed anywhere, so this sentence does not cover any of the criticisms set out in the previous point. The reason you actually provided figures was to prove your point that the app library is growing, which I have already shown to be irrelevant to people buying today.Actually, I called you ignorant for describing it as an 'isolated case', because it was only in the UK, or because you or your 'friends' hadn't used it. THAT is ignorance. It's fine that you don't know about Sky Sports, but it's NOT fine to disregard it on that basis, or to make claims about where it applies if you, as you readily admit, know nothing about it. Do you see the difference? So in summary, everything I've said has been correct, you've been reduced to agreeing with the original poster, and you've falsely accused me of generalizing when in fact generalization is the only method by which your post could ever have any relevance to the platform as a whole. Oh and of course, it was all sarcastic ;-)[/citation]
So, you went all the way to point out that people choose a platform based on market size is right because that's how you view things and my rebuttal is wrong? Is that not generalizing? Clearly, you're trying very hard to twist arguments so that it works in favor of you and everyone must agree with you, is that it?

Everything starts from 0 don't you agree? Even a 3 year old kid would agree to it. Don't bring in 1 = 2 or whatever bullshit equation you can think of. Clearly, you failed to understand simple logic. All I said was, all platforms start from 0, simple as that. If you'd like to interpret it as mobile platform at launch, then that's your problem. Don't put words into my mouth.

As for being ignorant, well, how'd you expect me to know anything about the UK, let alone Sky Sports, if I've never been to the UK. Aren't you being a little ignorant yourself? Is this not an isolated case if it's not commonly known? Compare it against Angry Birds and you'll see how tiny your Sky Sports really is. How else would you classify an isolated case then?

Your conclusion pretty much sums up your character. You're the type who refuses to admit your own mistakes. You came in high and mighty and assumed that I was challenging the original poster about lacking of apps when you could not understand the sarcasm within it, and now you say I've been reduced to agreeing? Troll harder man.

On top of that, I have not falsely accused you of anything. Ask anyone here and they'll agree with me that you, in fact, did generalize the public as a whole, would purchase smartphones, solely based on apps and market size.

As for your so called "relevance", we'll see about that when Windows 8 rolls out.

 

[back_by_demand]

[citation][nom]watcha[/nom]A lot of people care less about performance if there's less they can do with it.As for describing it as a 'swinging dicks contest', I'm simply pointing out that it will suffer due to having less apps. Pretty obvious, and I even compared it to BOTH Android and Apple.As for the actual 'real world' tests, carried out a massive 25 times, hand selected by Microsoft, the vast majority of which not involving the iPhone 4S, with the iPhone 4S beating it in one of them, out of ... 2? 3? Who knows, because they didn't publish it? Please. lol[/citation]
Whatever, there's no point discussing with you, even if Steve Jobs himself were resurrected and went on Oprah to cry out to the massess that the iPhone had been beaten in a speed test where the subject chose the task, you would still find a way to change the subject to something off topic and hammer 30 posts about the same things over and over and over and over (ad infinatum).
...
Here's a couple of hot tips Einstein, stay on topic and learn to summarise.

 

[watcha]

[citation][nom]alikum[/nom]So, you went all the way to point out that people choose a platform based on market size is right.[/citation]

I think, if possible, you surpassed your previous levels of idiocy.

Did I ever say that people choose a platform based on market size? The answer, is no.

Read that again.

Did I ever say that people choose a platform based on market size? The answer, is no.

Did you read it this time? Understood?

Which makes it absolutely absurd that you say what you said.

For the... 20th time... (see if you can read this time, maybe English isn't your first language) - the fact that there are less apps on Windows Phone will bother SOME PEOPLE. Note the use of the word 'SOME' - do you know what 'SOME' means? SOME is not a generalisation. Do you know what the difference between 'EVERYBODY' or 'ALL PEOPLE' and 'SOME PEOPLE' - I wonder? You are undoubtedly the biggest fail iv ever educated. lol

The fact that it will bother SOME PEOPLE, whether that is 90% of people, 1% of people, WHATEVER, makes Windows Phone a less compelling proposition. Now, again, as I explained ..... 5 posts ago, which completely escaped you - when evaluating how compelling an operating system is objectively, or globally - you factor in EVERYBODY'S opinion, including yours. I'm gonna dumb it down now, at this point, because at every opportunity you could fail to understand, you have. Note, that this is NOT the same as forming your own personal and subjective opinion. It's about how compelling the operating system is to humanity as a whole. I even went to great lengths in my 2nd or 3rd post to you to ask you to look outside your own little ignorance, and to look beyond MY person views too - and consider objectively. Now WHEN you factor in the opinion of those who actually want all the functionality that apps can bring, WINDOWS PHONE OBJECTIVELY becomes less appealing, overall. Do you understand yet?

Lets try another angle until this sinks into your ridiculously retarded brain:

If X% of people don't like Y feature of something, and 0% of people buy because of Y - the something is less objectively appealing, and will achieve fewer sales as a result. Whatever X is. Do you understand? Or are you still so delusional that you think we're talking about your personal opinions? Again, for the sake of clarity, lets apply that to Windows Phone. If x% of people don't like the fact that Windows Phone has fewer apps, and 0% of people buy Windows Phones because it has fewer apps, it is objectively less appealing, and will achieve fewer sales results.

Note - the fewer sales is the CONSEQUENCE, not the CAUSE. (you really are thick, lol)

[citation][nom]alikum[/nom]Everything starts from 0 don't you agree? Even a 3 year old kid would agree to it. [/citation]

First of all, this wasn't your original statement. Your original statement is that every mobile OS starts with zero apps. Starts can mean either launch date OR beginning of development, and is more likely to mean start of development in this context (as I already explained to you). Since we were referring to the launch of Windows Phone this would be an obvious interpretation. To reduce your own sentence to saying 'everything starts from 0' is beyond ridiculous. You render your whole point totally not worth saying.

Furthermore, did the universe start from 0? Perhaps the 3 year old kid lacks the intelligence of a 7 year old which is required to realise that it didn't?

[citation][nom]alikum[/nom]Don't bring in 1 = 2 or whatever bullshit equation you can think of. Clearly, you failed to understand simple logic.[/citation]

Ironically, you bringing this up is precisely because you failed to understand the point being made. You claimed you were being sarcastic, I showed that being sarcastic could make any incorrect sentence correct - so therefore being sarcastic is no defence for the inaccuracy of a sentence. Simple, easy. For a 7 year old, who understands English, of course.

[citation][nom]alikum[/nom]All I said was, all platforms start from 0, simple as that. [/citation]

Is an idea not a thing? Can anything exist without being a thing? Has it truly started if it consists of nothing? Clearly not. The start of something is when it becomes something, ie not zero. You're just a walking fail on every level really aren't you?


[citation][nom]alikum[/nom]If you'd like to interpret it as mobile platform at launch, then that's your problem. [/citation]

First of all, it's actually your problem. You as the communicator have a responsibility to be clear, you failed. You were trying to convey a message, and didn't do it properly. In actual fact, the only reason I interpreted it as a mobile launch was because that would be the only way it wouldn't be a complete nothingness of a sentence. Credit which I gave you mistakenly, it seems. As it happens, in previous posts I catered for both options, rendering your 'interpretation' argument a nonsense, and I have also proved that whichever interpretation we use, it was wholly incorrect, and absolutely irrelevant.

[citation][nom]alikum[/nom]As for being ignorant, well, how'd you expect me to know anything about the UK, let alone Sky Sports, if I've never been to the UK. Aren't you being a little ignorant yourself? Is this not an isolated case if it's not commonly known? Compare it against Angry Birds and you'll see how tiny your Sky Sports really is. How else would you classify an isolated case then? [/citation]

To quote myself (maybe you will understand English on my 2nd attempt) - and pigs might fly hey?

[citation][nom]watcha[/nom]
It's fine that you don't know about Sky Sports, but it's NOT fine to disregard it on that basis, or to make claims about where it applies if you, as you readily admit, know nothing about it. Do you see the difference? [/citation]

Try reading it this time? Nobody expected you to know anything about Sky Sports. You know nothing. Let you write it off as 'isolated' (do you know what isolated means?), and you also stated it applies only in the UK. These are bold claims for someone who claims to know nothing? And of course, they are both factually incorrect claims, since Sky Sports is in multiple countries and that alone proves it is not an isolated case. How is it ignorant to be aware of something local? I didn't say you had to know about it, I simply provided it as a proof that you were wrong. Simple? And of course, it's one example of thousands. An isolated case, for your education, is something which only happens once. Sky Sports alone affects more than one country, but even if it didn't, for it to be isolated it would have to be the only app which allows you to watch sport which isn't available on Windows Phone. Guess what, that isn't the case. And only ignorance would lead you to that conclusion. Lesson (56?) - knowledge of something cannot mean ignorance unless that knowledge is incorrect.

[citation][nom]alikum[/nom]
Your conclusion pretty much sums up your character. You're the type who refuses to admit your own mistakes. You came in high and mighty and assumed that I was challenging the original poster about lacking of apps when you could not understand the sarcasm within it, and now you say I've been reduced to agreeing? Troll harder man.On top of that, I have not falsely accused you of anything. Ask anyone here and they'll agree with me that you, in fact, did generalize the public as a whole, would purchase smartphones, solely based on apps and market size.As for your so called "relevance", we'll see about that when Windows 8 rolls out.[/citation]

I'm glad you see me as high and mighty. As someone who can actually speak and understand English, I don't make mistakes. It's a fun way to be, you should try it sometime. And it would be illogical to admit a mistake if I hadn't made any, wouldn't it now, my illogical friend

Whether you were being sarcastic or not, my original clarification that you were irrelevant stands regardless. What you said IS irrelevant to people buying phones to use today. That's simply a fact. Sarcastic or not. (Notice how I'm dumbing this down for you).

I very much doubt anyone honest would even remotely agree with your assertion that I generalized about anything. I specifically stated, on 4 or 5 or maybe now even 6 occasions that only SOME people have to care about apps for me to be right. And you see, the rest of the people reading this probably know what 'SOME' means

And by the way, with regard to 'relevance' (since again, nobody has a clue which comment you were directing that comment at) - the relevance of your comment in the future is precisely my point. Irrelevant now. Get it?

(Dumbest_guy_ever) lol

 

[watcha]

[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]Whatever, there's no point discussing with you, even if Steve Jobs himself were resurrected and went on Oprah to cry out to the massess that the iPhone had been beaten in a speed test where the subject chose the task, you would still find a way to change the subject to something off topic and hammer 30 posts about the same things over and over and over and over (ad infinatum)....Here's a couple of hot tips Einstein, stay on topic and learn to summarise.[/citation]

Why do you think I would believe it just because Steve Jobs said it? I believe the iPhone 4S is the fastest CPU/GPU phone because it IS, not because of marketing.

If you were honest, you would readily admit the same. So who is irrationally believing nonsense?

And as for staying on topic? I responded directly to every part of your post, so if I was off topic you've only got yourself to blame.... 'Einstein'

;-)

 

[watcha]

more likely not to mean*

 

[samuelspark]

I want a free phone

 

[alikum]

[citation][nom]watcha[/nom]I think, if possible, you surpassed your previous levels of idiocy.Did I ever say that people choose a platform based on market size? The answer, is no. Read that again.Did I ever say that people choose a platform based on market size? The answer, is no. Did you read it this time? Understood?Which makes it absolutely absurd that you say what you said.For the... 20th time... (see if you can read this time, maybe English isn't your first language) - the fact that there are less apps on Windows Phone will bother SOME PEOPLE. Note the use of the word 'SOME' - do you know what 'SOME' means? SOME is not a generalisation. Do you know what the difference between 'EVERYBODY' or 'ALL PEOPLE' and 'SOME PEOPLE' - I wonder? You are undoubtedly the biggest fail iv ever educated. lolThe fact that it will bother SOME PEOPLE, whether that is 90% of people, 1% of people, WHATEVER, makes Windows Phone a less compelling proposition. Now, again, as I explained ..... 5 posts ago, which completely escaped you - when evaluating how compelling an operating system is objectively, or globally - you factor in EVERYBODY'S opinion, including yours. I'm gonna dumb it down now, at this point, because at every opportunity you could fail to understand, you have. Note, that this is NOT the same as forming your own personal and subjective opinion. It's about how compelling the operating system is to humanity as a whole. I even went to great lengths in my 2nd or 3rd post to you to ask you to look outside your own little ignorance, and to look beyond MY person views too - and consider objectively. Now WHEN you factor in the opinion of those who actually want all the functionality that apps can bring, WINDOWS PHONE OBJECTIVELY becomes less appealing, overall. Do you understand yet?Lets try another angle until this sinks into your ridiculously retarded brain:If X% of people don't like Y feature of something, and 0% of people buy because of Y - the something is less objectively appealing, and will achieve fewer sales as a result. Whatever X is. Do you understand? Or are you still so delusional that you think we're talking about your personal opinions? Again, for the sake of clarity, lets apply that to Windows Phone. If x% of people don't like the fact that Windows Phone has fewer apps, and 0% of people buy Windows Phones because it has fewer apps, it is objectively less appealing, and will achieve fewer sales results.Note - the fewer sales is the CONSEQUENCE, not the CAUSE. (you really are thick, lol)First of all, this wasn't your original statement. Your original statement is that every mobile OS starts with zero apps. Starts can mean either launch date OR beginning of development, and is more likely to mean start of development in this context (as I already explained to you). Since we were referring to the launch of Windows Phone this would be an obvious interpretation. To reduce your own sentence to saying 'everything starts from 0' is beyond ridiculous. You render your whole point totally not worth saying.Furthermore, did the universe start from 0? Perhaps the 3 year old kid lacks the intelligence of a 7 year old which is required to realise that it didn't?Ironically, you bringing this up is precisely because you failed to understand the point being made. You claimed you were being sarcastic, I showed that being sarcastic could make any incorrect sentence correct - so therefore being sarcastic is no defence for the inaccuracy of a sentence. Simple, easy. For a 7 year old, who understands English, of course. Is an idea not a thing? Can anything exist without being a thing? Has it truly started if it consists of nothing? Clearly not. The start of something is when it becomes something, ie not zero. You're just a walking fail on every level really aren't you?First of all, it's actually your problem. You as the communicator have a responsibility to be clear, you failed. You were trying to convey a message, and didn't do it properly. In actual fact, the only reason I interpreted it as a mobile launch was because that would be the only way it wouldn't be a complete nothingness of a sentence. Credit which I gave you mistakenly, it seems. As it happens, in previous posts I catered for both options, rendering your 'interpretation' argument a nonsense, and I have also proved that whichever interpretation we use, it was wholly incorrect, and absolutely irrelevant.To quote myself (maybe you will understand English on my 2nd attempt) - and pigs might fly hey?Try reading it this time? Nobody expected you to know anything about Sky Sports. You know nothing. Let you write it off as 'isolated' (do you know what isolated means?), and you also stated it applies only in the UK. These are bold claims for someone who claims to know nothing? And of course, they are both factually incorrect claims, since Sky Sports is in multiple countries and that alone proves it is not an isolated case. How is it ignorant to be aware of something local? I didn't say you had to know about it, I simply provided it as a proof that you were wrong. Simple? And of course, it's one example of thousands. An isolated case, for your education, is something which only happens once. Sky Sports alone affects more than one country, but even if it didn't, for it to be isolated it would have to be the only app which allows you to watch sport which isn't available on Windows Phone. Guess what, that isn't the case. And only ignorance would lead you to that conclusion. Lesson (56?) - knowledge of something cannot mean ignorance unless that knowledge is incorrect.I'm glad you see me as high and mighty. As someone who can actually speak and understand English, I don't make mistakes. It's a fun way to be, you should try it sometime. And it would be illogical to admit a mistake if I hadn't made any, wouldn't it now, my illogical friend Whether you were being sarcastic or not, my original clarification that you were irrelevant stands regardless. What you said IS irrelevant to people buying phones to use today. That's simply a fact. Sarcastic or not. (Notice how I'm dumbing this down for you).I very much doubt anyone honest would even remotely agree with your assertion that I generalized about anything. I specifically stated, on 4 or 5 or maybe now even 6 occasions that only SOME people have to care about apps for me to be right. And you see, the rest of the people reading this probably know what 'SOME' means And by the way, with regard to 'relevance' (since again, nobody has a clue which comment you were directing that comment at) - the relevance of your comment in the future is precisely my point. Irrelevant now. Get it?(Dumbest_guy_ever) lol[/citation]
[citation]
Well here we go, since you asked for it I'll give it to you.
[nom]watcha[/nom]Firstly, they don't all necessarily start off with no apps, the developers of the platform could easily build some initial apps, so you're wrong, but that's beside the point.Growth is not relevant for a consumer buying today, unless it means that the actual number of apps will match either of the 2 competing systems in the very immediate future (as in days / weeks) - people buying a phone today want to be able to use it today. Even if the growth WAS faster than Android 'at its age' (of which I see no evidence from yourself, saying 'check on statistics' is not evidence), the fact is there are just over 50,000 apps on the Windows marketplace, compared to 10 times that on Android and even more on iOS is a far more compelling reason NOT to buy than the vague promise of possible 'growth' in the future.The clear point of the original poster remains, and you should not be refuting it - Windows Phone 7 as a proposition obviously suffers due to having 10x fewer apps than two established competing platforms.[/citation]
Read, people buying a phone today want to be able to use it today. By saying people, instead of "SOME" people which you later claimed you meant it that way, you were actually generalizing which I then pointed out that you were wrong because NOT EVERYONE goes into smartphones for apps, simple and concise.

As for everything starting from 0, you're going off track man. You've run out of points to argue and start telling about ideas? Ideas aren't products. Ideas will always remain ideas if nothing is done about ideas. Hence, apps = 0 regardless of how many ideas u have if no work is done. Walking fail? You sir, just made my day.

You still can't deny the fact that you simply failed to understand my earlier statements which you then proceeded to counter argue. Again, my points stand about Sky Sports being an isolated case. It may be available in certain countries and it still an isolated case. Come on, suggest a more mainstream app that we can both agree on. I threw in angry birds, mainstream enough, which would also make Sky Sports look like a kid. Look, I ain't arguing about Sky Sports (the channel, in case you still don't get it) itself, I'm talking about it as an app. Who goes into smartphones for Sky Sports alone, an app that you cannot have without? Calling it a killer app just made your points that much more invalid, coupled with the fact that it's not available globally, hence, an isolated case. Ignorant? Looks like you're the one not to realize the world is far bigger than you, your country and your Sky Sports.

Your last point, you're right, I was never attempting to correct you about relevance, none of my posts were. I was simply pointing out that the market is growing healthily, no one can deny that. And I was pointing out that you were wrong, for generalizing. Simple as that.

 

[back_by_demand]

[citation][nom]watcha[/nom]I believe the iPhone 4S is the fastest CPU/GPU phone because it IS, not because of marketing[/citation]
So your not going to give any credit for the tests that the WP won, not a single iota, not a bean
...
Figures

 

[back_by_demand]

[citation][nom]watcha[/nom]If that was true, then you would render the argument 'it is growing' irrelevant, which is one of the points I made. See, I catered for either scenario (true genius).And for what it's worth, it is my personal opinion that a certain % of apps in any app store are pointless and/or duplicates. But that % is broadly the same for any app store at any particular number of apps. That is fine, and obviously that means you will have more pointless or duplicated apps the bigger the app store goes. But it is also highly unlikely that all of the 450,000 additional apps are duplicates and/or useless, indeed I have provided an example which proves this is not the case. Thus, I have already proved that whether the gain is 1 useful app, or 449,000 useful apps, there is definitely a gain, which satisfies your criteria. Please feel free to prove that every iPhone or Android app has a Windows Phone counterpart (a far bigger claim) with comprehensive sources and links.;-)[/citation]
Good call, I ask you to look for something and you tell me to do it myself, what a prize prick