Talk:Symbian OS

message: Isnt the first Symbian 6.0 phone Nokia 7650?
--194.106.188.16 20:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: First Symbian phone

message: Most of the conversation below is off-topic, though a lot of it contains valuable suggestions and input.  The question was specifically whether this article should be renamed as History of Symbian instead of being a current article on Symbian OS.  Short answer - No, do not move the article.  The operating system is still in use and the article would be harder to find under the "History of..." name.  Perhaps the discussions below incent those with a Symbian bias to update the existing article?
74.241.226.172 (talk) 17:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree to some extent. It will only be an improvement after rewriting/reshuffling Symbian platform and Symbian OS/History of Symbian. The current organization of the articles in not acceptable to me, because it keeps on causing confusion to all people/readers who are unfamiliar with the subject. Andries (talk) 17:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving the Symbian article

message: Should it really come here rather than going to Symbian Ltd. which seems rather more natural?
: Symbian usually associated with OS, not company.Serg3d2 08:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Symbian]] redirect 

message: I'm removing the  tag, if only because the article is now significantly different from when it was originally tagged , and has seen review by many others.  Also, regarding the merge-tag from EPOC (computing) to here...  does anyone have any comments on that?  I'm slightly in favor of keeping the articles separate because:  1) The Symbian OS article is somewhat long already (17k).  2) the EPOC OS work was done by Psion, eg. done by a slightly different company, and we also have separate pages for details like Psion 3 and Psion 5, those pages are similar in length to the EPOC page, and if the EPOC page was felt to be too short, we could even go as far to merge those three together.  3) many people have edited the article, and none of them have performed the merge despite the suggestion.  I don't have a really strong feeling on this, though if nobody comments for a while, I might remove the merge tag.  --Interiot 17:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge because EPOC was an important part of Symbian's history and Psion probably deserve more credit for this than they're getting currently. Plus the EPOC article is short and there is already EPOC info in this article. -- samj inout 13:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Merge complete, basic integration done, needs cleanup by expert. -- samj inout 13:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup tags, Merge 

message: EPOC really is Symbian OS. There's more difference between Symbian OS 8 and 9 than there is between EPOC 5 and Symbian OS 6. So I am in favour of the merge, but haven't been able/willing to approach it myself.
Once it's all merged into one page then it might be sensible to separate them out a bit, e.g. more pages for different versions. Just my 2p worth, anyway.
Adetaylor 21:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Symbian is used on mobile phones, EPOC was more for Psion devices, so for users it's a real difference, also in interface, interaction... I'd suggest leave them as separate articles.
Marijn de Jong 1:57, 14 December 2005 (CET)
I agree that the pages should be merged -- anonymous owner of several Psion PDA devices. 21:19 5 April 2006 (PST)
I'd keep them separate as the devices they run on are different. Stephen B Streater 06:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Missed this discussion but just finished the merge. Symbian is effectively EPOC, rebadged and run differently. It doesn't justify a separate article (I'd have AfD'd otherwise) and EPOC will see more eyeballs in the Symbian article, giving Psion their due credit. -- samj inout 13:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thoughts on the merge 

message: I'd prefer if the article had only 5-8 external links, beyond those directly connected to Symbian or Nokia.  Having a long list of low-quality sites just encourages others to add more low-quality links (and wikipedia isn't a repository of links).
I'm not really closely familiar with all the sites listed here, but I have a few suggestions for organizing these:
# separate out the links that are more associated with developer information, from the sites that list software/hacks to download (since devs and end-users probably want different kinds of content)
# single-contributor blogs are less valuable than sites that are maintained or contributed to by many people.  I removed symbianreview.com because it's hardly ever updated.  symbianwatch.com is updated somewhat regularly...  could we vote on this one?
# If there are a lot of forums/wikis out there, can we try to just list the top 3 or 4 of them?
--Interiot 12:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link explosion 

message: Hi, given my job at Nokia making Carbide.c++ I'm destined to be biased about my product but thought it would be useful to have a separate page for the tool, much like Visual Studio has its own. Now the Carbide.c++ page has been flagged as advertising... I could use some outside help to weigh the content for neutrality. 
Cheers, Maahonen
Hi, I've made it more neutral, although that did involve including some criticism of Carbide. Hopefully you don't mind too much - I expect it should at least save the article from deletion. I definitely do agree it deserves a page. Cheers, Adetaylor 08:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help with Carbide.c++ page 

message: Shouldn't there be a reference to the skulls virus? Solidsnake204 19:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's not an actual virus, just a proof of concept never found in the wild. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.168.1.18 (talk) 21:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skulls Virus? 

message: I was checking out the Windows Mobile page and its being very well maintained considering the fact Windows Mobile users have a much smaller market share. Can someone with lots of Symbian OS knowledge and experience contribute please. Current sate of this page is just pathetic! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MMuzammils (talk • contribs) 06:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ah but...windows mobile is a windows subset and there are *far* more windoze OS developers than Symbian OS. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.209.32.108 (talk) 20:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Symbian OS page needs major revamp 

message: The "Competition" section appears to be much confused technically, even somewhat self-contradictory.
For instance, there has been no need for real-time features in unix operating systems to properly drive the network stack, even at 10gbit, and this has not prevented them from breaking the land speed records.  As long as hardware interrupts can be served with a minimum of latency and code (either delegating to software interrupts or other scheduling mechanisms such as a task or thread), a networking stack should be no issue for a non-realtime operating system with a single processor.  Adding a second processor does not change this either.
Moreover, it is generally more common for an RTOS to explicitely dedicate tasks to specific processors, while the section appears to state otherwise (and an RT or non-RT OS can both properly function with single or multiple processors as long as the scheduler and structure of the OS allows it).
As for power saving, most multitasking OSs allow to temporarily halt the processor until an interesting hardware interrupt occurs (and the interesting ones can be specified in software via the interrupt mask).
Thus, it appears erroneous to directly link OS capability with hardware configuration, which the text appears to suggest.
IMO, it requires a rewrite.  The competition issue more has to do with human decisions and market factors than with hardware or software capabilities in this context, because the processors and memory in units which can run Symbian OS are capable enough to run a variety of other OSs (as well as NetBSD or Linux, for instance).
66.11.179.30 10:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Competition section 

message: Can editor comment the latest "Openness" edit about GPL ? Is it applicable to GPL 1 ?
What about LGPL ? What is the source of information ? Is it editor opinion, or there were some precedents ?
I think this part need more in depth explanation and references.Serg3d2 16:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Openness and GPL 

message: The claim that this is a "hard" Real-Time OS (RTOS) needs to be backed-up with a reference. Most commercial real-time systems are soft; only medical and other safety/critical systems constitute hard real-time systems.  PDAs and smart phones do not constitute hard systems. It is a very common misconception to think of any system with real-time response as a 'hard' real-time system. In fact, most are soft. This includes networking devices. 
Also, the designation is that of the entire system, including the hardware, not just of the RTOS.
P00r 04:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hard vs. Soft 

message: Why is there a flag in the Structure section questioning the articles tone? Mathiastck (talk) 20:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tone 

message: from artical:
"Symbian OS EKA2 supports sufficiently-fast real-time response that it is possible to build a single-core phone around it - that is, a phone in which a single processor core executes both the user applications and the signalling stack. This is not a feature that is available from Linux. "
...apparently this company has made a Linux phone running on a single core:
http://www.purplelabs.com/news-press-release-view.php?code=76
"NXP offers powerful 3G and 3.5G multimedia platforms running on a single ARM926 processor core"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.172.90.47 (talk) 19:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linux phones need two cores?? 

message: Should there be some part of the article talking about the bad performance problems (and fixes of some of them in later versions) of symbian OS. (especially file access was very slow on old versions, now faster but still not very good)Hkultala (talk) 07:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Performance problems 

message: I just removed :Category:Free_software_operating_systems, added added proprietary in the first line.  This article also needs some references to what Symbian really means by "open", as in "open mobile  operating system", from what I found it's not open as in open source. Guaka (talk) 12:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: http://news.zdnet.co.uk/0,1000000073,39672469,00.htm  "Published: 09 Jul 2009 15:36 BST   - The Symbian Foundation has released its first open-source software package, the first step in the organisation's plan to eventually open source the entire Symbian mobile operating system." Guaka (talk) 05:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: eventually was the key word. Netrat (talk) 22:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Open, free, proprietary?

message: Please help expand the following Symbian OS related articles:
* Python for S60
* Mobile Web Server (Apache HTTP Server)
* P.I.P.S. Is POSIX on Symbian
Thanks!—IncidentFlux [ TalkBack | Contributions ] 21:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help expand: Python, Mobile Web Server (Apache), P.I.P.S. for S60 

message: How can I install programs (i.e. PDF reader) in Symbian phone ?. Do I have to download the file to a PC and them install it in the mobile phone ? How ?. Regards.--Nopetro (talk) 13:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Install apps  

message: Workabout mx is no longer in production, it appears in the 'discontinued products' category of Psion's website. Edited the article. A new version, Psion Workabout pro, running windows is in production however. Shyboy16 (talk) 16:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: WorkAbout

message: This is just silly. Symbian OS and Symbian are not different products. This was a mere marketing trick, shortering OS name. It makes not sense having 2 separate articles or marking Symbian OS as "historic". Netrat (talk) 22:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article split, deletion, merge, etc 

message: I expect Qt to have some words in this long Symbian text.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Comptrol (talk • contribs) 15:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed! I've now updated it to reference Qt. It's still possible to use Symbian C++ to develop so I guess we should leave the section as one of the possible languages (as well as keeping it for historical reasons). Although I wonder if we should trim it down now - there seems a lot of rant/criticism about Symbian C++ being poor, but that's no longer fair or relevant now that standard C++ with Qt is the official SDK for Symbian. Mdwh (talk) 22:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Qt