<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Windows Mobile 6.5 Honeycomb Menu &#8211; Usability?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.mobilitysite.com/2009/03/windows-mobile-65-honeycomb-menu-usability/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.mobilitysite.com/2009/03/windows-mobile-65-honeycomb-menu-usability/</link>
	<description>Mobile News, Reviews, and Views.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 Dec 2009 04:35:20 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Pony99CA</title>
		<link>http://www.mobilitysite.com/2009/03/windows-mobile-65-honeycomb-menu-usability/comment-page-1/#comment-15658</link>
		<dc:creator>Pony99CA</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Mar 2009 00:21:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mobilitysite.com/2009/03/windows-mobile-65-honeycomb-menu-usability/#comment-15658</guid>
		<description>@Chris:

&lt;blockquote&gt;I think that many, not all, share their disappointment on what we see in 6.5 with the fact that it seem Microsoft is not moving towards the same area as the iPhone. I would be disappointed if the were moving towards being like the iPhone to be honest.&lt;/blockquote&gt;
I agree.  It would be stupid for Microsoft to try to be just like the iPhone.  I doubt Microsoft can out-Apple Apple.  Plus, if you want to have about 75% of the function of Windows Mobile while requiring twice the memory, go with OS X.  :D

Of course, Microsoft shouldn&#039;t ignore the iPhone&#039;s many strengths, either.  They should figure out ways to replicate the good points in Windows Mobile while keep WM functionally superior to the iPhone.

If Microsoft was very smart, they have patent sharing agreements with Apple (maybe as payment for developing Office for the Mac) and won&#039;t have to worry about patent claims.

Steve</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Chris:</p>
<blockquote><p>I think that many, not all, share their disappointment on what we see in 6.5 with the fact that it seem Microsoft is not moving towards the same area as the iPhone. I would be disappointed if the were moving towards being like the iPhone to be honest.</p></blockquote>
<p>I agree.  It would be stupid for Microsoft to try to be just like the iPhone.  I doubt Microsoft can out-Apple Apple.  Plus, if you want to have about 75% of the function of Windows Mobile while requiring twice the memory, go with OS X.  :D</p>
<p>Of course, Microsoft shouldn&#8217;t ignore the iPhone&#8217;s many strengths, either.  They should figure out ways to replicate the good points in Windows Mobile while keep WM functionally superior to the iPhone.</p>
<p>If Microsoft was very smart, they have patent sharing agreements with Apple (maybe as payment for developing Office for the Mac) and won&#8217;t have to worry about patent claims.</p>
<p>Steve</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: breley</title>
		<link>http://www.mobilitysite.com/2009/03/windows-mobile-65-honeycomb-menu-usability/comment-page-1/#comment-15655</link>
		<dc:creator>breley</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Mar 2009 20:51:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mobilitysite.com/2009/03/windows-mobile-65-honeycomb-menu-usability/#comment-15655</guid>
		<description>An interesting article from Long Zheng.  Though, as one of the commentators pointed out, there are deficiencies in the whole concept.  If the idea is to make the OS finger-friendly, then the relatively tiny Start icon and menu bar items such as volume, network access, close and notification must also be improved or abandoned, and the OS designed  in favor of capacitive touch screens.  While I feel WinMo is more robust in many ways than the iPhone, the end user experience of the touch screen itself I feel is superior in terms of speed and effort.  But this latter aspect has already been debated extensively in the blogsphere so I&#039;m not going to beat a dead horse.

Just my $0.02...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>An interesting article from Long Zheng.  Though, as one of the commentators pointed out, there are deficiencies in the whole concept.  If the idea is to make the OS finger-friendly, then the relatively tiny Start icon and menu bar items such as volume, network access, close and notification must also be improved or abandoned, and the OS designed  in favor of capacitive touch screens.  While I feel WinMo is more robust in many ways than the iPhone, the end user experience of the touch screen itself I feel is superior in terms of speed and effort.  But this latter aspect has already been debated extensively in the blogsphere so I&#8217;m not going to beat a dead horse.</p>
<p>Just my $0.02&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: winmobile</title>
		<link>http://www.mobilitysite.com/2009/03/windows-mobile-65-honeycomb-menu-usability/comment-page-1/#comment-19025</link>
		<dc:creator>winmobile</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Mar 2009 17:31:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mobilitysite.com/2009/03/windows-mobile-65-honeycomb-menu-usability/#comment-19025</guid>
		<description>&lt;span class=&quot;topsy_trackback_comment&quot;&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;topsy_twitter_username&quot;&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;topsy_trackback_content&quot;&gt;Windows Mobile 6.5 Honeycomb Menu - Usability? - Mobility Site http://tinyurl.com/cr24ab&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><span class="topsy_trackback_comment"><span class="topsy_twitter_username"><span class="topsy_trackback_content">Windows Mobile 6.5 Honeycomb Menu &#8211; Usability? &#8211; Mobility Site <a href="http://tinyurl.com/cr24ab" rel="nofollow">http://tinyurl.com/cr24ab</a></span></span></span></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
