[rthonpm]

OS 7 actually performed quite well on the upper-end Bolds.

I daresay if the code was maintained, supported and optimized and backed with hardware such as dual- / quad-core CPUs and several gigabytes of RAM, it would be just grand.

This has been discussed, and debunked, many times. The core of BBOS was an embedded OS for a pager with email. Phone functionality, applications, and the like were added later. To meet modern expectations in an OS would have required even more strain on a taxed system. Add in the platform limitations inherent in the Java base and there was no feasible way to continue with BBOS, and really BlackBerry stayed with it for far too long. At this point, staying with BBOS would be like working with a 16-bit desktop in the business world.

Obviously in hindsight, there should have been more cooperation between the QNX and legacy teams in building BlackBerry 10. It would have helped to reduce many of the pain points while also allowing for a new line of thinking.

Add in this along with the organisational disorder with in BlackBerry that made them averse to change and you have a Kodak situation: a pioneer in a technology that sees a disruption coming and is too hesitant to let go of a still profitable business line to adapt.




Posted via CB10

[idssteve]

This has been discussed, and debunked, many times. The core of BBOS was an embedded OS for a pager with email. Phone functionality, applications, and the like were added later. To meet modern expectations in an OS would have required even more strain on a taxed system. Add in the platform limitations inherent in the Java base and there was no feasible way to continue with BBOS, and really BlackBerry stayed with it for far too long. At this point, staying with BBOS would be like working with a 16-bit desktop in the business world.

Obviously in hindsight, there should have been more cooperation between the QNX and legacy teams in building BlackBerry 10. It would have helped to reduce many of the pain points while also allowing for a new line of thinking.

Add in this along with the organisational disorder with in BlackBerry that made them averse to change and you have a Kodak situation: a pioneer in a technology that sees a disruption coming and is too hesitant to let go of a still profitable business line to adapt.




Posted via CB10

Yeah, tragically, ML's attempt to "let go of a still profitable business line" just might be what led him to sequester QNX from experienced legacy teams.

I, for one, find no fault in Kodak clinging to chemistry based imagery while still profitable. Kodak failed to adequately embrace the future. Embracing the future doesn't necessarily, automatically, demand abandoning past or anything else. Legacy products will automatically die a natural death as new concepts mature enough to PROVE superior. BBOS would have died a natural death as BB10 matured enough to PROVE superior. RIM/QNX simply lacked resources to nurture BB10 to timely maturity while simultaneously surrendering their legacy experience, IMO.

Physical shutter release buttons are still found on modern digital cameras that have no shutter to release. Some user interfaces are simply "right" regardless of underlying technology. BBOS' mature GUI remains "right" whether built on macro or micro kernel.

Which is why this post is being authored on a 4yr old 9900 while my Classic, PassPort and Z30 sit charging on desk.

[David Tyler]

. I, for one, find no fault in Kodak clinging to chemistry based imagery while still profitable. Kodak failed to adequately embrace the future. Embracing the future doesn't necessarily, automatically, demand abandoning past or anything else. Legacy products will automatically die a natural death as new concepts mature enough to PROVE superior.

Enthusiastically agree! I've never followed the argument the BlackBerry should have "ripped off the Band-Aid" on BBOS.




Passport SE: All the snooty prestige of a device with a precious metal in the name at less than half the price!

[Liam Lantz]

I received new BlackBerry 9900 yesterday, I found the software old and not lucky enough I found it vintage. I look for tutorial on how to update the software. Tap "Option"-"Device"-"Software Update" but "Software Update" is missing. I can't update it manually following what the tutorial dictates. Any help for this. Thank you..

Posted via CB10

[terminatorx]

ANYthing is "possible". Time & $$, ya know. I, for one, wouldn't want the car stereo clowns at QNX monkeying with OS7's GUI, for example. In Steve's perfect world, a genuine collaboration between RIM & QNX developers SHOULD have fitted OS7's toolbelt/pkb optimized GUI onto the solid QNX (BB10) foundation. Maybe OS8? At least until their glass oriented BB10 side got on its feet. If ever.

Choices have consequences. Abandoning 9900 form factor and GUI was a deliberate choice. Time & $$ being significant influences in that choice, no doubt. My personal conviction is that too many folks were viewing the "Apple problem" from a misguided perspective. But, that's a topic best left for "Steve's imperfect world". .

I agree. As much as i like BB10, I just don't understand how BlackBerry expected it to be a major success when it is essentially a brand new OS coded from scratch. The "next" version of BBOS should have started as a progressive evolution from the OS7.1 Gui and feature set, rather than something totally new. Meaning, the prior bells and whistles should have all been there, just with a refined engine and user interface tweaks and IMPOVEMENTS. What you have is a drastically different OS and a vast departure from BBOS. Heck you couldnt even run BBOS apps anymore either, which to me is insane.

Like you have said many times, its pretty clear there was not much collaboration between QNX team and the BBOS devs. Those folks along with the Lazaridis era hardware architects, are IMO the true pioneers of this company.

[ashir sajjad]

OS 7 actually performed quite well on the upper-end Bolds.

I daresay if the code was maintained, supported and optimized and backed with hardware such as dual- / quad-core CPUs and several gigabytes of RAM, it would be just grand.

Just because it runs as a JVM doesn't mean it absolutely has to perform horribly. You know lots of modern enterprise apps run as JVMs too?

It took two years after the initial release of OS 10 before that OS was capable of replacing the functionality of OS 7.

They should just have forked from Android at the very start.

[Lithtech]

While they may look the same they're not. The Classic is bigger - they tried to make them very close to the design theme of the 99xx.

See? *they tried* i dunno... why couldn't they just make the BOLD9900 again with higher specs and slap BBOS10 on it?


Blackberry should of listened... bloody idiots.

[idssteve]

See? *they tried* i dunno... why couldn't they just make the BOLD9900 again with higher specs and slap BBOS10 on it?


Blackberry should of listened... bloody idiots.

Fear of success? Lol.

[Lithtech]

Yea... lol most probs then they have to make millions of these devices lol...

[rhp525i]

I bet you could do it on the HTC HD2 the most jerry-rigged phone of all time. lol

[anon(8063781)]

I bet you could do it on the HTC HD2 the most jerry-rigged phone of all time. lol

I always wanted an HD2, but weirdly, given that you could put almost anything on it, I wanted it for the original OS. Windows Mobile with a capacitive touchscreen would have been great.

Also: very weird to unexpectedly com across your own two-year-old posts...

Posted via CB10

[anon(8063781)]

If BB10 becomes the new legacy, will some folks' "BBOS derangement syndrome hatred" now shift toward BB10? Lol.

Prophetic!

Posted via CB10

[idssteve]

Prophetic!

Posted via CB10

Haha... foggy crystal ball & all... lol.

Problem with this thread is the assumption that BB10 represented an "upgrade" from 7.1. Simplistic mathematic assumption that # 10 > 7.1 somehow indicates BB10 > OS7.1 ignores BB's arbitrary abandonment of normally expected version naming convention. BB10 wasn't based on OS7.1 in ANY way and therefore couldn't be considered to be an improved version of OS7.1. Just a different platform that really should have been named BB1.0 rather than BB10, imo. An ingeniously deceptive misrepresentation, imo.

I wonder if OP would have included the word "upgrade" in their question if BB10 were appropriately referred to as BB1.0 ... ?? Lol

BB10 affords strengths AND weaknesses compared with OS7.1.... and therefore represents a great "side grade" alternative. Imo. BUT, defining "upgrade" depends on which OS7.1 GUI features an individual values. Imo.

[mushroom_daddy]

Agreed, BB OS7 and BB10 are distinctly different operating systems, they share common objectives but often take distinctly different approaches.
I use both and they both have their strengths and weaknesses. I guess somebody could do a systematic SWOT* analysis of the two systems, but what's the point? They are what they are in 2017 and sadly neither will be developed further.

*there would be Strengths & Weaknesses, and certainly some 'Threats' (security) – but arguably, no further 'Opportunities'

[anon(8063781)]

BB10 affords strengths AND weaknesses compared with OS7.1.... and therefore represents a great "side grade" alternative. Imo. BUT, defining "upgrade" depends on which OS7.1 GUI features an individual values. Imo.

From what I have been led to believe BB10 was a definite upgrade under the hood. But, in my opinion, at the UI and 'precision controls' level (both physical and software) OS7.1 was much more mature and usable.

I think most of us are old enough to remember the old DOS-based Windows, so I'll use it as a metaphor: it's too bad they couldn't have just swapped out the 'DOS' and kept the 'Windows' :P




Posted via CB10

[idssteve]

From what I have been led to believe BB10 was a definite upgrade under the hood. But, in my opinion, at the UI and 'precision controls' level (both physical and software) OS7.1 was much more mature and usable.

I think most of us are old enough to remember the old DOS-based Windows, so I'll use it as a metaphor: it's too bad they couldn't have just swapped out the 'DOS' and kept the 'Windows' :P




Posted via CB10

Haha... we still have an old 486 machine with DOS/Win3.1 used for maintaining some legacy equipment... it's NEVER permitted access to network nor removable storage that's ever been in ANYthing else... lol. . We have several old hdd's backed up for replacements... I STILL prefer Win3.1's GUI. But can see their attempt at reducing consumer learning curves with 32bit Win95 "Start" button. What i'll never comprehend is WHAT pathology led MS into Win8 and "Ribbon menus"... ???? lol.

"Foundation" aside, I tend to relate BB's 7.1/10 GUI transition as more analogous with Win7/Win8 transition. To similarly predictable outcome, imo.

BB10 provided fabulous improvements in reliability. I just don't see where senselessly altering the GUI contributed to that reliability improvement. For compact handsets, anyway. Imo.

[XWintech]

I dunno, why can't I upgrade a 1996 HP to Windows 10?

Actually you can lol

[joeldf]

Actually you can lol

I'd like to see Win 10 on an old Pentium 90 or 100 machine.

Load Edge up with a couple of tabs worth of media heavy websites and see what happens...

[XWintech]

XD
Computer kaput!