|
Just google/bing it, there are 100s of links.
|
|
|
|
|
So said I.
Then I read it is a step down from the 1520 I already have. 
|
|
|
|
|
In what way is it a step down?
|
|
|
|
|
They didn't specify and it's a pain in the butt to get complete specs on these things.
But they were talking about the cameras and screen immediately before that, so that may be it.
I don't think the 1520 will run W10, though, so there's that to consider, too.
|
|
|
|
|
Based on everything I read so far, these new phones have 6-core CPUs faster than those on any other existing phones. It's possible that the camera may not be as good as that on your model though. I was focusing more on the CPU, memory, performance, and the ability to convert it to a desktop via a docking pad.
|
|
|
|
|
But I need the phone to take high-quality photos of kittehs for posting on the internets, so I have to take that into consideration.
actually, I may switch phones, anyway, when the XL is available. 4K video? Hell, yeah. 
|
|
|
|
|
I intend to, too. I have the 920 now, so it's a no-brainer for me
|
|
|
|
|
GenJerDan wrote: the 1520 I already have
Love my 1520.
Psychosis at 10
Film at 11
Those who do not remember the past, are doomed to repeat it.
Those who do not remember the past, cannot build upon it.
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry man. That's already been done. Here at the office we have a "the future of computing" Motorola Atrix LapDock gathering dust.
Although cell phone, laptop and desktop convergence has been the stuff dreams have been made for decades, few people actually have that use case and smartphones still cannot deliver a compelling reason to go laptop less. Even tablets, which could have replaced laptops aren't that hot right now, being replaced by Phablets like the iPhone 6s Plus and Samsung Galaxy Note 6.
Maybe the Microsoft Lumia 950XXXL will change that, but don't count on it.
Windows Episode X, Revenge of the Win32 APIs.
|
|
|
|
|
uhhhh... well... uhhhh... it's from Microsoft... so it's not... uhhhh... innovative. yeah.
wow m8 gr8 b8 I r8 an 8/8. though it was a little l8 and it seems you h8 f8, it still has that tr8 that makes you acceler8.
|
|
|
|
|
So, now we know. Shipping the developer edition in Q1 2016 and costs $3000.
|
|
|
|
|
Went to check the site - it's all wrong...in all browsers...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes. I'm supposed to write the Pluralsight course for it so I'd better get one first
|
|
|
|
|
|
Definitely. They do look Alpha at the moment - but hopefully the developer version will give people the chance to put them through their paces and really nail down any issues.
|
|
|
|
|
This thread[^] is sparking some debate in the new section, but we should probably do that here, right?
So, the first thing is notice is that I find myself really hating string interpolation with a passion. Anything in a string should be string, not some sneaky variable name. C# is not PHP.
Await in catch/finally sounds great though. In the past I've needed ugly hacks to approximate that.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, those strings aren't normal strings when you add the $ prefix... It's syntactic sugar for a more readable string.format.
Haven't used the async/await stuff yet, as I'm still stuck on VS2010 / .NET 4.0 (Sucks to be the only .NET programmer in a Java shop)...
Some of the changes look useful though...
* Static initializers - Very situational, but would help with some of the legacy code I support
* Auto property initializers - Nice
* Dictionary initializers - Uh, ok... But the old method was good enough
* String interpolation - Sure
* nameOf() - Somewhat useful
* Expression-bodied functions - Um, ok... So it's a Func<>, but it looks almost like a method... Meh
* Exception filters - I suppose... But imagine how badly this will be abused by horrible coders
* Await in try/catch - As above, haven't used async/await yet, so dunno
* Null conditional - YES! So many null checks that all do the same damn thing...
|
|
|
|
|
Ian Shlasko wrote: Expression-bodied functions - Um, ok... So it's a Func<>, but it looks almost like a method... Meh
Almost - it's a regular method that looks like a lambda function.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
The null check will be dead useful, not sure if I'd adopt much of the other stuff. But then I still for "foreach" like the dinosaur I am.
|
|
|
|
|
F-ES Sitecore wrote: I still for "foreach" like the dinosaur I am
No! Use for whenever you can! Avoid foreach and its ilk unless it's the only thing that will work.
|
|
|
|
|
What's wrong with foreach?
|
|
|
|
|
Not as efficient as a for for the same task.
|
|
|
|
|
OK, but that may be a bit outdated - for example, the difference between
private static int test1(int[] ar)
{
int sum = 0;
foreach (var i in ar)
{
sum += i;
}
return sum;
}
and
private static int test2(int[] ar)
{
int sum = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < ar.Length; i++)
{
sum += ar[i];
}
return sum;
}
Is .. not much. The loop bodies are
_loop1:
mov eax,dword ptr [rdx+r9+10h]
add ecx,eax
inc r8d
add r9,4
cmp r8d,r10d
jl _loop1
_loop2:
mov eax,dword ptr [rdx+r9+10h]
add ecx,eax
inc r8d
add r9,4
cmp r8d,r10d
jl _loop2
Literally the same thing, it even used the same registers.
|
|
|
|
|
Now try the for in reverse. And try it with something more complex than an array of ints.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
