Talk:Windows Mobile/Archive 1

More info on Active Syncing

I would like more information on the Active Syncing in regards to Windows Mobile 5.0. For example does it sync wirelessly without using Windows Exhange and on a home network? How about more information about the tables function. Does it allow tables or not wasn't clear about that and does it allow creation of tables within the device? Thank you. Astracat 02:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)astracat

Removed the "Challenges" section - completely opinion based

The Challenge section was a joke. Windows Mobile is far from perfect and still has a LOT of room for improvement, but claiming that 2003SE had "essentially unstable phone functions" or that carriers terminated updates "due to support volume and update failures" or that "Gigabyte sized memory cards could easily crash these early-generation models" are complete fabrications. T-Mobile just released another update in July of 2006 and carriers all over the world continue to roll out updates. I've used 2GB cards on 2003SE devices with no problems for many months, and have owned a phone device for nearly 2 years and have no "essentially unstable" experiences, nor do the communitities I operate in.

If someone wants to list some of the real challenges, like the memory leaks that seem to plague WM5, or the eternally long boot times, be my guest. BUt that list looked like it was created by some zealot from another mobile device operating system, or by someone that simply doesn't like Microsoft. Basically, none of it met the standards of Wikipedia:Verifiability Bonsai8 (talk · contribs)

Long Boot Times

I have a few comments/thoughts on the eternally long boot times: Based on what I have observed and my experience with the Windows CE OS over the years, I would guess some of the slower boot times (even on soft reset!) of many of these newer HTC Pocket PCs (Even those running Pocket PC 2003 with its RAM based object store) is caused by their increasing use of NAND based flash for the OS as well as how their bootloaders handle it.

On many non-Pocket PCs (and even some true Pocket PC devices) it seems boot times are much, much faster. Almost instant for soft reset! (as one would expect)

I suspect that, for god knows what reason, the bootloaders on many of these newer HTC (and other) devices must re-copy THE ENTIRE OS IMAGE back into RAM on every reboot regardless of reset type. (Nand is too slow to XIP so all devices with NAND flash must do this) I find this very odd that any OEM/ODM would make their devices do this...but it sadly seems to be the case for THE MAJORITY and the best I can come up with based on my observations. The Casio BE-300 and Bsquare Maui (AKA Power handheld) and many others, for example, will only reload the OS into RAM from NAND Flash if you perform a HARD RESET. A normal soft reset of most of these devices will take a matter of seconds as the "ROM/OS Image" is already loaded into RAM so that it may execute in place from there and will always be loaded until you pull the battery or perform a hard reset.

Now as for slow boot times of devices that use NOR flash for their ROM... I can't explain that one... Thats just too weird for words when you look at most other WinCE devices. Many of the older WinCE Handheld PC/Pocket PCs and even many newer devices with a custom non-Pocket PC WinCE OS (Such as the MiTAC Mio C310x) seem to boot quite fast on both soft and hard reset. My HP Jornada 728 hard resets in about 10 seconds and soft reset takes about 4(or less). My best guess is that the Pocket PC shell and some of the other resource hogging features like the PIM software, security/Mobile Operator support stuff, etc may also be a culprit. Its possible that maybe its the just the Pocket PC Platform/OS stuff that makes it such a memory hog and makes booting appear slower as I hear that a whopping 14mb of RAM is in use on fresh boot of the HP hx4700 despite running the OS XIP from NOR flash as well as taking 20 seconds to even soft reset! This is quite a shock since most plain Windows CE devices have at most 2-3mb of RAM in use when freshly reset despite using the very same OS! (CE 4.2) Maybe all of these extras that need to load at boot on Pocket PC also cause all these slowdowns.

Another thing that may contribute to the slowness is that OEMs were using very slow flash memory to save costs and the speed of the memory used would not really matter until WM5 appeared. This may also explain the extreme slowness of early and upgraded WM5 devices as well as the very slow boot times of more recent WM2003 Pocket PC devices. I would also guess since WM5 no longer uses RAM to store user settings, bootloader implementations changed drasticly and no longer even attempt to countinue to keep the contents of RAM powered on reset.

To sum it up: I would blame slow boot times less on the OS/Platform and more on the OEM's implementation of their ports of the OS to their hardware. Though, WM5 may have changed this some and much of the slowness may also partially be its fault. It would be great if someone with the knowledge/experience with P/PC could add something mentioning this odd slowness that has been becoming more and more common with recent devices to the main part of this article in some way. Tfgbd 23:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions from a new person interested in Software Development (Microsoft Context)

I chanced upon this page via List_of_Microsoft_topics. And I am aware the main contributors of the WikiWikiWeb page of C2Wiki version of WindowsMobile would not mind using any written material there to enhance this Wikipedia page.

I hope there is more description of current (version 5) Windows Mobile and how it differs from the base of WM2003 products. An example is more facilities to allow use of "persistent storage" so more complicated applications can be built, improved browser capabilities. And I would be interested in limitations (some suggested new functionalities achieved at the cost of performance)

BTW I am wondering whether there is a group of people to build up a new topic on Software Development (Microsoft Context), but I do not know where to post this query. So please delete this part and move to an appropriate page for me. Thanks from Dlwl (talk · contribs) around 04:23, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Added site

Old news which has been deleted.. edits by Lunez

Recent edits by Lun4tic

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Windows_Mobile&diff=44544284&oldid=44023806

Did anyone notice that under the guise of Lun4tic's edit to "removed spam and commercial sites" that he/she ....

"removed" two freeware sites (pocketpcfreewares.com, freewareppc.com) which are questionable as to whether that qualifies as "commercial". It's free, right? even though it's ad-sponsored, yes? Yet he/she saw fit to "add" a new site - smartphony.net - which is described as having freeware for Windows Mobile smartphones (and also, is ad-sponsored). Following that logic, I am going to remove smartphony.net until we can get a clearer explanation from Lun4tic here.

(Does anyone here think that maybe Lun4tic has a vested interest in that site? I don't see the IP address for where the edits came from - perhaps because I am new and don't know where to look. smartphony.net is registered to a Thomas Hoefter from Hattershiem, DE. Does anyone know if the IP from that edit change happened to come from the same general area?) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Toomer (talk • contribs) 2006-03-20 22:33:37 (UTC)

A better name for this class of devices

Camphoda

• Camera
• Phone
• Digital
• Assistant

--Uncleharpoon 21:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Market Share

Could we get some numbers on market share? How does it compare with symbian? Mathiastck 17:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course Pocket PC and Smartphone compete with Symbian as they are all PDA/Smartphone platforms but Windows Mobile is more than just those 2 platforms and things like PMC that target digital audio players are hardly even close to a PDA-centric OS like Symbian or PalmOS.Tfgbd

Microsoft licenses Windows Mobile to four out of the five world's largest mobile phone manufacturers, with Nokia being the other

And what about Apple? Shouldn't the article be changed to say "three out of the five"? But it could point out that Apple has licensed ActiveSync from Microsoft. --Clith (talk) 20:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC) Apple is not one of the largest phone manufacturers. It is one of the largest smartphone manufacturers. Apple's iPhone sales barely register against the hundreds of millions of phones sold by Nokia etc every year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CalumCook234 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Way too Pocket PC centric and really does not explain other standard platforms under the "Windows Mobile" Brand

This article should either be merged with Pocket PC or rewritten completely, in my opinion.

It has very little to do with the Windows Mobile range of Windows CE based consumer Mobile OSes and barely makes even a passing mention of anything other than Pocket PC.

The Article on Pocket PC 2002 not only really badly written but it should be mentioned that Pocket PC/Smartphone 2002 were only considered Windows Mobile platforms later in their life. The first real WM Platfroms were the 2003 series platforms and even those were not branded as Windows Mobile for their initial release (as evidenced by how they are refered to in the SDK documentation)

People need to realize that Windows Mobile is NOT just Pocket PC and this is the place to do it! This article just does nothing more than confuse people new to the OS and spread misinformation about what it really is and what qualifies as a Windows Mobile platform. So far, there are several consumer-targeted WinCE based OSes under the "Windows Mobile" umbrella brand. Not all of them are open platforms either. They are (so far as I know):

• Windows Mobile for Pocket PC/Pocket PC Phone Edition
• Windows Mobile for Smartphone
• Windows Mobile for Portable Media Center (such as the Zune)
• Windows Mobile for Automotive (Not to be confused with the less-consumer oriented Windows CE for Automotive/Windows Automotive which is sold to auto manufacturers)
  • (If there is one I missed and someone knows, please don't hesitate to tell me.)

It is also worth noting that not all of the platforms under the Windows Mobile brand are open platforms like Pocket PC or Smartphone. Windows Mobile for Portable Media Center as used in the Zune is a platform closed to 3rd party developers. So is Windows Mobile for Automotive which was introduced in some of new Fiat cars. (Though, I'm not sure if there are plans to make it an open platform in the near future)

I think it would also be a good idea to mention some of the other CE OSes that were devloped by the Microsoft Mobile devices division before they unified the branding as "Windows Mobile". At least a passing mention of Auto PC, Handheld PC and Pocket PC before it became a Windows Mobile platform would be nice.

It should also be noted that Windows Mobile is more or less just a marketing term and most of the OSes have very little to do with eachother other than all being based on Windows CE and the fact that they are targeted at various consumer markets.

As it is, I think someone with better Knowledge of Windows CE's history should rewrite this article from scratch and all the Pocket PC stuff should just be moved to Pocket PC (or just removed entirely as it seems to just be repeating the Pocket PC article anyway) Tfgbd 01:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, and hence I added the "Hardware Platforms" section to the article with tries to explain some more about this. Brianreading 20:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The Refence-Link for "volume" in the section on the Task Bar seems wrong

Clicking on the Volume link takes one to the geometric concept. I don't think that's what is meant. See "Volume: A volume refers to a logical storage unit seen by the computer as a single item. This may be a floppy disk, an entire hard drive, or one or more partitions on hard drives." http://www.angelfire.com/zine2/vmug/glossarypage2.html

Do we need a disambiguation page for volume? Ileanadu 05:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)Ileanadu

Obsolescence Section

Is that necessary? Seems more like an advertisement to me at worst, and an opinion at best. 216.152.209.73 01:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC) +1. Too pretentious, and obviously not in the right place.

Link to wm6wiki.com

Woah what the? I've been done for spamming? All I did was post a relevant link to a wiki that is relevant to the topic... Thats wikipedia's admins for ya, dont like other wikis hey? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ekto (talk • contribs) 04:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

Assume Good FaithLife, Liberty, Property 04:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

that "wiki" only has three changes in the last 30 days at this time--is that even notable? Springbreak04 02:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

POP3 / IMAP usage

I removed the following description of POP3/IMAP usage from the Outlook Mobile bullet. It seemed like too much detail and probably needs to have a citation:

POP3 access is the most common but has some limitations. It only synchronises inboxes so e.g. when you send emails from Windows Mobile the ‘Sent’ file on your server (e.g. Yahoo!) will not be updated. There can also be a problem with emails disappearing from the server after being downloaded into Windows Mobile. Windows Mobile is set up so it always leaves a copy of emails on the server. However if emails are deleted in Windows Mobile they will be deleted from the server (unlike the full version of Outlook which allows you to change the settings so this doesn't happen). When the ‘Deleted Items’ folder is emptied an ‘instruction to delete’ is created by Windows Mobile and the next time it connects via POP3 it gives this instruction to the server and the relevant emails are deleted. To prevent this happening you should avoid ‘managing’ your inbox from Windows Mobile. Instead, access the server via the web and manage your emails on-line. When you next connect via POP3 your Windows Mobile inbox will clear to the 'managed' state. If you’re not going to use your mobile device for a while it’s sensible to use the ‘Clear All’ function in the 'Services' menu before you put it away. This will clear all the emails from the PDA but not delete them from the server (reducing the risk of them being deleted accidentally in the future).

--Ishi Gustaedr 14:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it was extraneous and off-topic. Brianreading 17:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Windows mobile 6.png

Image:Windows mobile 6.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I've submitted a rationale for this image. Brianreading 04:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Link to WM6Software.net

I've undone the edit that adds this link in the External links section. I've done so based on reasoning from Wikipedia's reference regarding External links, and I've outlined specifically as to which reasons I think apply here:

1. "Links mainly intended to promote a website."
2. "Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. For example, instead of linking to a commercial bookstore site, use the "ISBN" linking format, giving readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources"
3. "Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising."

Are there any Wikipedians out there who agree or disagree with this? Brianreading 20:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Good article

I've read through it and it follows the GA criteria except for some images do not have a fair use rationale. I think it'd be best to remove them and instead use a freely licensed image if possible. There are plenty of images licensed under Creative Commons (Attribution and Share-Alike) on Flickr.[1][2].

And maybe one other nitpick. I think you should mention that WM 6.0 is the latest version and a new release is expected in 2008. Mahanga^Talk 17:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that some images need fair use rationales, but as far as using free image replacements, is this really possible? Derivatives of screenshots (where the bulk of these non-free images are coming from) are still copyrighted. The hardware device photos are all free images already.

Also, it is already noted in the article that Windows Mobile 6 is the latest version and that the new OS is scheduled to be released in 2008. Did you mean this should be added to the lead section? Thanks for your help! Brianreading 04:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to follow up on this. I've added fair use rationales to the appropriate images, and updated the lead section. Brianreading 08:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I meant the lead section. I added the current version, feel free to reword. Do you have any details on WM's market share?

Hmm, you're right about the copyright issue. Everything looks good then. I'm making this a GA. Mahanga^Talk 16:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Based on NeXT?

I doubt the next Windows Mobile is based on NeXT, the operating system that would become Mac OS X. Yet, this article says it is in the Next (2008) section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveSims (talk • contribs) 08:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, although I think the author of that section meant "the subsequent OS" as opposed to NeXT. Microsoft did not show Photon at the Mobius event, but did show an upgrade to Windows Mobile 6. There was no announcement of Photon being dropped. I deleted that section from the article. (See engadget or intomobile.) --Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 17:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

External links

I added an External Link to the Smartphone & Pocket PC magazine web site. This is one of the richest sources of information related to Windows Mobile devices. The addition was reverted. I'm curious why. Other links in that section link to single reviews. Why wouldn't a site that has hundreds of articles and reviews be an acceptable link? Thanks. GadgetLover (talk) 20:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The article has 3 citations from the magazine, links to the root domain of any site doesnt provide a unique resource for readers, and is unecessary.--Hu12 (talk) 20:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much. Appreciate the explanation. GadgetLover (talk) 21:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

;)--Hu12 (talk) 21:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Software Development Section

I wanted to add this statement to this section because I think it's like some of the "market information" you see around wikipedia. But someone said that it's "trivial". I'm not sure why this would be considered as such since it gives current quantative as well as qualitative information about the software development as well as provides evidence to back it up.

There has been a wide assortment of third-party development and the rate at which new applications are created has been increasing at a high rate. For example, as of May 2008, FreewarePocketPC.net boasts over 6,600 applications available for download.

--Rasmasyean (talk) 19:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction

Intro says: the current version being Windows Mobile 6.1, and a new release scheduled for 2010.

"Future versions" section says: Windows Mobile 7 is a major upgrade planned for release in 2nd half of 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.189.129.129 (talk) 08:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Windows Mobile 6 Pro?

But the image is of Windows Mobile 6 Classic...I'll change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MasterOfTheXP (talk • contribs) 02:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

PS: I kept the Classic image of WM6 in the WM6 section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MasterOfTheXP (talk • contribs) 03:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The screenshot of WM6 Professional is not a standard WM install, it appears to be a hacked version with the HTC Home plugin. I would put a better one on myself but Wikipedia doesn't make it very easy to upload files. 220.233.194.252 (talk) 00:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

No free development tools

The section on software development mentions that the visual studio express editions are freely available. However, I don't believe the express editions can be used for developing software for windows mobile. So I don't believe this statement to be relavent to the article. --tpower (talk) 19:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I am surprised to see the following addition I've made to the article got removed: "Unlike full-fledge Windows operating system, Windows Mobile does not have batch language capability, so it's not possible to write and run simple scripts on Windows Mobile. However, the free third-party MortScript is available for writing and executing scripting commands. " The reason for removing it is as follows: "Removing product reference - this article does not discuss differences with desktop Windows, and it is certainly not a good place for third-party product plugs.)"

That reasoning and action is quite disturbing to me because the title of the section is "Software development" and there should be some reference on developing basic script development on Windows Mobile. Since Windows Mobile doesn't support batch files natively, a free alternative seems even more important to any developer searching for this type of development tool. And I'm speaking for myself as well, because that's is exactly how I found this Wikipedia page. I've chanced upon it looking for a way to develop simple scripts. This Wikipedia page happens to lack that information. After finding a free scripting tool, which there aren't many, I was excited to come back and update this article, thinking many developers, like myself would find it useful. I don't see how this is a plug, since I don't even know the person who developed this scripting language.

Anyway, I haven't put my paragraph back in, since someone obviously feel strongly against it. So It's here up for discussion. Personally, I feel this article is lacking in the "Software development" section. To me, taking out my script development paragraph is an analogy to removing the "Software development" section entirely. In fact, writing about Visual C++ is the same as giving it a plug. I don't see how you can consider that not being a plug just because it's got Microsoft's name on it. And it's not like it's a bundle product to Windows Mobile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.103.211.18 (talk) 22:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that the availability (or lack thereof) of simple batch scripting should be acknowledged in the article, plugging these script development tools would be unencyclopedic. Microsoft's tools are the official way to develop, and that is why they should still be mentioned. Brianreading (talk) 04:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Images of choice

It seems that someone using an HTC device has uploaded pictures for the "Windows Mobile 6 Professional" screen. I have currently changed the text to better suit this, however, the screen being displayed is developed by HTC for HTC phones only. It does NOT reflect Windows Mobile 6 Professional itself. A new image using the Windows Standard screen should immediately be uploaded for correctness.

 - Thyme Cypher  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.37 (talk) 05:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC) 

I agree. We need vanilla WM screens here, not jazzed up, customized ones. Brianreading (talk) 18:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed the image

You might have seen my last Windows Mobile 6 image, which people disagreed with because it was an HTC Touch. I still used the HTC Touch for my new one, but the Today Screen has been changed to a normal one. --MasterOfTheXP (talk) 21:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Image

I changed the image name to 6.1. Also, are the icons on top a hack? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MasterOfTheXP (talk • contribs) 23:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

They may be. From the moment I saw this image, I thought it may be inappropriate. Why doesn't the top start menu match the glossy look of a default WM 6.1 theme? Brianreading (talk) 00:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Screenshot: New pic and Name change

If you still have to change it, message me through YouTube or Wikipedia. Anyway, I changed the name ONCE AGAIN to 6.1, which is the screen-shotted version. DONT CHANGE PLZ! And the icons up there are no longer a hack, don't change! --MasterOfTheXP (talk) 23:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Windows 6.5

Are the WM6.5 rumers to vague to include a mention of this likely OS? This is an encyclopedia article, so we should work with credible info and not speculation, but as long as we state that it is only a leaked rumer, then I think it is acceptable to mention. Also, I appologize if my syntax is poor. I am an amature when it comes to Wikipedia and have only made minor edits to date. --Kevin1a 02:44 MST, 05 November 2008

I disagree. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Brianreading (talk) 11:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

IT has been confirmed: http://www.neowin.net/news/main/08/11/07/windows-mobile-65-confirmed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.138.1.245 (talk) 15:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, it should be put in then. It's not speculation anymore. Brianreading (talk) 20:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Since its allmost at beta stage ive added a screenshot of the latest build 21193 running on an actual WM device (Stock unmodifed rom) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.47.26.209 (talk) 19:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Device listings

Does anyone have any sources for these device listings that were added to the version sections? If not, they should definitely be removed. I'm not even quite sure they belong either. Brianreading (talk) 04:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The source is in the References section. It is http://www.geekzone.co.nz/smartdevices.asp "Directory of devices based on Windows Mobile". However it is very difficult to search that directory for which model supports which version, so I went through it and extracted this. Silas S. Brown (talk) 10:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh there are many links missing int he device list to the articles of the devices. please add them. (the redlinks to! if they will be created later we needn't to look at if there are created. it is similar to the mobile phones vendors' templates: there are also many redlink in!) mabdul 0=* 12:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that the device listings would be better off as stand-alone lists on the Wikipedia namespace. They also don't have inline citations, that's why I couldn't tell what source this was coming from, and they don't follow the conventions for making a list on Wikipedia. The appropriate way is to use bullets since the lists are long. However, I think with the number of devices listed, it would take away from the focus of the article. Therefore, I suggest that for each device listing per section, a separate list be created on Wikipedia named accordingly such as List of Windows Mobile 2003 devices, etc. Then we could use the "seealso" template to link to those lists. What do you guys think? Brianreading (talk) 18:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

do it. todo-list:

• links to articls
• citation(maybe already in the articles)
• nav-template integration

mabdul 0=* 19:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what this to-do list even means. I think we were still trying to figure out what we wanted to do. Brianreading (talk) 04:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure what all of the above means, but I've now moved the lists to a List of Windows Mobile devices article. (I don't think having a separate article for each list is a good idea, because that makes it a bit awkward to search for a device to see which version it runs.) Sometimes there are Wikipedia articles for the manufacturers, ranges, or individual models, but this is not always the case. I don't know if it's a good idea to make lots of red links for the ones whose articles I couldn't find. That might upset some policy about having too many non-functional links. But if anyone has good ideas for what to do with it then please go ahead. Silas S. Brown (talk) 12:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay that works. I went ahead and added the list to the Windows Mobile devices category, and made a Seealso link at the beginning of the Hardware platforms section on this article. Thanks for your hard work. Brianreading (talk) 02:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Market share, HTC numbers

The citation used to show HTC may have manufactured 80% of Windows mobile need to note that many other companies, which some may assume make phones but do not, and rather contract out to HTC and companies HTC has a stake in, comprise that 80%. From the numbers the likelihood is that HTC branded is the minority. It also had said that HTC licenses 80% and that is no shown in the reference at all. HTC liscences WM for HTC phones. Palm licenses the windows mobile it has had HTC build for it. The HTC 80% creates a skewed impression since it is more a result of consoldation of manufacturing. EG If Palm has bought millions of Windows mobile licenses, as it has, and had HTC, and companies with some HTC ownership stakes build them, they are included in the 80%, but it does not mean if HTC went out of business that those handsets would not have been made for Palm by someone else.

This existing lede is also factually challenged and not referenced: "Microsoft projected in 2008 that shipments of devices with Windows Mobile will increase from 11 million to 20 million units, but it missed its initial goal in only selling 18 million licenses citing the delayed launch of certain smartphones. Windows Mobile's market share as an operating system for smartphones worldwide has fallen from 23% in 2004 down to 12% in 2008.[1] "

The "supporting" reference is: a) from an iphone oriented and iphone supporting blog; b) suggests Microsoft "missed" its goal when the referenced article says nothing of the sort and mentions no numbers claimed; c) the reference is actually from September 08 yet purports to show final figures for 08; and d) is substantially contradicted by the 50 million sales total in the more recent third referenced article which seems to indicate more than 18 million in 08.Carwon (talk) 03:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)