[General Topics] quicksite:
Okay I figured that re WP7 device makers, since they came first and android was tapped next... But dell makes touchscreen devices? damn, i never knew that! Their marketing must be lousy.

Nokia keeps baffling me.

RAMMANN, I saw you commenting (i think :confused: ) in that " WP7 fail" thread, right, aren't you active in that?

Regardless: Help me understand this: I've never understood the Symbian OS or its market simply because i never had a symbian powered phone... But, isn't this correct -- about a year ago nokia bought symbian, right? But my recollection from back then -- which may be wrong -- was that they were going to kill it -- or simply use it as a proprietary OS in their own phones.

And yet... within that WP7 fail thread, numerous comments particularly at the start of the thread sang the praises of Symbian OS as the most efficient and best Open source OS out there -- with those praising it saying that, by contrast, ANdroid is a battery hog and ineffcient in its process managewment... The precise details are not so impt for what I want to knoiw:

Although I have known nothing about Symbian, the buzz, whenever i heard it mentioned over the past 5 years, was always positive... almost cult-like ... or rather "true believers" because it was that outstanding an OS...

So, if that is the case... and Nokia bought them, what WAS their plan? to give them respources to develop it further fortheir exclusive use, or what? The discussion confused me becasue it made it seem to me that it was still a very active OS outthere for developers to work with...

So what am I missing her.. it seems like I am missing the whole story. And re Nokia themselves... why are they always -- to my mind -- considered in an entirely different box or category from WM (i don;t like calling WP), Android, iPhone, WebOS, Blackberry? They never seem to get parity... The only time I hear or see Nokia mentioned is when someone wants to make a comparison about how inefficinet current phones are, and how their Nokia from 10 years ago could do virtually everything Phone X can do today (minus the big media player screen) with battery charge lasting 5 days, and stuff of that nature... or they mention the Nokia N900 as the best phone out there --- yet it rarely comes up in the big compariosn tests.

Why is that?

And does N900 run symbian OS? If so, is it marketed that way? [EDIT: OKAY I just read this part, so i see that answer is no: which begs the question AGAIN: why are devs here at XDA continuing to extoll the greatness of symbian ?? why?? Is it The Poor Little OS That Nobody Really Took The Time To Understand? or what??

EDIT: from a review contained in link above:

And finally, this statement:

First off, how are they collaborating? Are they not in direct competition with head-to-head OS ?

... Were you alluding to more of a case of Nokia hooking up with the wrong contender for SURVIVING ALONG WITH IPHONE -- Windows vs Android? -- or were you alluding to Nokia having company stability problems like Palm was having, heading straight inot the tank -- before rescued last second by HP?

I know these are lots of questions -- but it's because I see the events of Palm's acquisition as being way more significant than others might see. And so it has promoted all these questions... yes... about survival as consumers start to select in the next year which touchscreen platforms start to go away because they just can't compete anymore, lacking sufficient differentiation or value proposition.

Any answer -- even if to just one of my 50 questions -- would be valued! thank you