Heh, I wouldnt be surprised if Microsoft will hammer down on HTC for their "implementation partner" not sharing their architectural ideas
Funny that I've recently read couple discussions about that issue (need for true close) on Microsoft Dev Blogs, and was dazzled by nearsightness of arguments - they've kept insisting "you dont need to know what is running in background if you dont notice slowdowns/memory outages", totally forgetting the fact that these "invisible" applications like to eat battery (invisibly), and also, not all applications designed well enough to be inobtrusive in "minimize" mode. It almost like their "mobile" programmers, are not mobile programmers at all, but in fact just plain PC programmers, totally ignorant on even basic quirks of embedded development.
Just yesterday I've accidently left Resco Explorer in background, and battery was 15% down overnight. Pretty much speaks for itself considering the fact that its down only 2% when nothing is "minimized".
Their "smart" minimize is not smart at all, it omits too many important factors. And yet, they try to keep insisting that the enduser do not need the true close even as option.
I wouldnt be surprised if thats just some top-layer manager there who is a big fan of "smart minimizing", its his/her baby, so he/she wouldnt let anybody do anything with it, regardless of facts presented. Would be the common situation in software development...
Now Microsoft would fight for it just for the sake of "winning" - after defending smart-minimize for so long time, they will feel like "losing a face" if they will finally admit that they were wrong. You have to be strong to admit you was very incorrect before.
This post has been edited by Ingvarr: 31 October 2006 - 03:11 PM