Unofficial Sprint Mogul ROM 3.49, WM 6.1, threaded SMS

"AZ Nomad" <aznomad.3@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote in message
news:slrng2mrdm.btl.aznomad.3@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net...
> On Wed, 14 May 2008 15:32:24 -0600, Roger 2008 <rwpcs@att.net> wrote:
>
> >"AZ Nomad" <aznomad.3@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote in message
> >news:slrng2mgus.ve.aznomad.3@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net...
> >> On Wed, 14 May 2008 11:01:47 -0600, Todd Allcock
> ><elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >"Roger 2008" <rwpcs@att.net> wrote in message
> >> >news:fvOdna2fU8x-37fVnZ2dnUVZ_hGdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> >>
> >> >> Is there anyway you can tell me if it works with
http://m.tvguide.com ?
> >> >>
> >> >> The last "official" ROM for the Mogul does not.
> >>
> >> >This issue you're having still pisses me off because I haven't figured
it
> >> >out! ;-) My HTC Wizard, when running either WM5 or 6 has no problem
> >with
> >> >the m.tvguide site, and I can't imagine how the browser on the Mogul
(IE
> >> >mobile) should be different than any other Windows Mobile device.
> >>
> >> WTF don't you use a different browser? Is the mogul not capable of
> >running
> >> user installed applications?
>
> >We had this discussion on the "tvguide on your Sprint Mogul" thread and
I'll
> >repeat myself.
>
> >1. I can get "m.tvguide.com" to work if I go to the following site
first:
> > http://www.google.com/gwt/n
>
> >2. There is no other browser for WM6 that can do FTP and HTTP from what
> >I've seen.
>
>
> irrelevent. 1) You don't need FTP to read tv guide. 2) they all do HTTP,
> it is the basic protocol for retrieving web pages.

True, but I can use FTP to get files from my home computer when HTTP doesn't
work with certain file names.


> Do continue to have the insane notion that one can't have multiple
browsers
> installed at the same time?

Just because I have to use a bookmark to view m.tvguide.com is no reason to
add a second browser to my Mogul.

At 14 May 2008 17:54:46 -0500 AZ Nomad wrote:

> irrelevent. 1) You don't need FTP to read tv guide. 2) they all do HTTP,
> it is the basic protocol for retrieving web pages.
>
>
> Do continue to have the insane notion that one can't have multiple
browsers
> installed at the same time?


I think it's more of a case where Roger doesn't see the need of installing
an extra browser just to render one website (that he's managed to
workaround anyway.)

At one time I had five browsers on my phone, yet still used IE Mobile 95+%
of the time, so I'm down to three- the included IEM, Opera Mini for the
occasional site IE has trouble with, and Skyfire, which, unless it's
improved greatly by the time it's out of beta, will be uninstalled the day
they start charging for it!

On Wed, 14 May 2008 20:35:48 -0600, Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
>At 14 May 2008 17:54:46 -0500 AZ Nomad wrote:

>> irrelevent. 1) You don't need FTP to read tv guide. 2) they all do HTTP,
>> it is the basic protocol for retrieving web pages.
>>
>>
>> Do continue to have the insane notion that one can't have multiple
>browsers
>> installed at the same time?


>I think it's more of a case where Roger doesn't see the need of installing
>an extra browser just to render one website (that he's managed to
>workaround anyway.)

and why solve a problem when you can just whine about it?

At 14 May 2008 23:48:42 -0500 AZ Nomad wrote:

> >I think it's more of a case where Roger doesn't see the need of
installing
> >an extra browser just to render one website (that he's managed to
> >workaround anyway.)
>
> and why solve a problem when you can just whine about it?


Installing a new browser doesn't solve the problem as much as it sidesteps
it. Other models of phone, running essentially the same browser don't have
the same problem. I find that interesting. If it won't render a simple
mobile site, who knows what else it can't render.

On Thu, 15 May 2008 03:14:42 -0600, Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
>At 14 May 2008 23:48:42 -0500 AZ Nomad wrote:

>> >I think it's more of a case where Roger doesn't see the need of
>installing
>> >an extra browser just to render one website (that he's managed to
>> >workaround anyway.)
>>
>> and why solve a problem when you can just whine about it?


>Installing a new browser doesn't solve the problem as much as it sidesteps
>it.
It solves it. There is no sidesteping.

>Other models of phone, running essentially the same browser don't have
>the same problem. I find that interesting.
not really.

>If it won't render a simple mobile site, who knows what else it can't render.
Who knows? Who cares? Maybe you should write a book about it. Devote
the rest of your life to catalog every single ****ing web application that
doesn't work on one particular version of one particular browser on one
particular system runing one particular operating system.

I don't see what the problem is. If you have one website that your main browser
can't handle, yet you have a different browser that'll handle it then the
problem is solved. Completely. Make a note to check future versions of your
main browser, perhaps, but get on with your ****ing life.

Do you see people complaining that they can't find any decent cars that can do
0-60 in under 5 seconds, seat ten, get 50mpg, and haul the contents of a 4000
square foot house?

No. There are specialized vehicles and nobody is stupid enough to
expect one particular model to do everything. Ditto for web browsers.

At 15 May 2008 14:01:19 -0500 AZ Nomad wrote:

> >Installing a new browser doesn't solve the problem as much as it
sidesteps
> >it.

> It solves it. There is no sidesteping.


Again, I would agree IF all phones running IE Mobile exhibited the problem,
but they don't. Just a very small number. Where I come from, that's
called a "bug." Ignoring the bug by using different software isn't fixing
the bug. That's a sidestep, IMO.

> >Other models of phone, running essentially the same browser don't have
> >the same problem. I find that interesting.

> not really.

You mean YOU don't find it interesting. Fair enough. Your lack of
interest is noted, yet you're apparently interested enough to complain
about Roger not following your advice, or anyone trying to deduce the
problem.

> >If it won't render a simple mobile site, who knows what else it can't
render.

> Who knows? Who cares? Maybe you should write a book about it. Devote
> the rest of your life to catalog every single ****ing web application that
> doesn't work on one particular version of one particular browser on one
> particular system runing one particular operating system.


But that's just it- THAT'S not the case if you've read the entire
(apparently uninteresting) thread- the SAME VERSION of the SAME BROWSER on
the SAME OS behaves differently on different models of phone. Again, where
I grew up, we call that a bug.


> I don't see what the problem is. If you have one website that your main
browser
> can't handle, yet you have a different browser that'll handle it then the
> problem is solved. Completely.

True. Arguably, he could also just bin the phone, switch providers, and
buy a new one. Alternatively, he could forsake all electronics and
technonogy, build a log cabin in the woods, and live off the land. There
are many solutions- and yours is certainly an easy one. (Roger's was also
easy- bookmark the Google reformatted page and use that, which is also a
sidestep.)

> Make a note to check future versions of your
> main browser, perhaps, but get on with your ****ing life.

Christ, it's just an intellectual exercise, not my life's work. I enjoy
the odd bit of troubleshooting and problem solving- it keeps the mind
sharp. Some people play sudoku... One evening recently when I had nothing
better to do, I tried to figure out why my son's recently-upgraded-to-Vista
PC no longer played dialog sounds in two of his RPG games (from the same
vendor- ironically Microsoft), but still played music and sound effects
even though ALL game sounds (those that worked and those that didn't) were
just 128k bitrate MP3s, and all played just fine under XP. The dialog
clips that wouldn't play in the game also wouldn't play in WMP.

To troubleshoot, I e-mailed a few to myself and discovered they'd play in
WMP in EVERY other PC in the house- whether XP or Vista and even on my PPC
phone. I played with different audio drivers, adding/removing codecs,
analyzed with GSpot and graphedit for awhile, but by hour #3, I threw in
the towel and sidestepped. (Even I will only waste so much time on a
purely intellectual exercise!) I sidestepped by batch re-encoding all of
the dialog files for both games to .wma and back to .mp3 and they now
worked- whatever the PC didn't like about original files was obliterated by
the re-encoding.. I saved the original versions in case I ever want to
"reopen the case" (unlikely unless we run into more .mp3s or games that
refuse to play.)

> Do you see people complaining that they can't find any decent cars that
can do
> 0-60 in under 5 seconds, seat ten, get 50mpg, and haul the contents of a
4000
> square foot house?
>
> No. There are specialized vehicles and nobody is stupid enough to
> expect one particular model to do everything. Ditto for web browsers.


Yes, but if your red sports car did 0-60 in 5 seconds, and my blue one with
the same body, engine, and transmission, did it in 20, I'd consider mine
defective. The issue isn't that "IE Mobile" itself can't render a
particular WAP page, but that HIS copy of it can't, where virtually all
others, older, newer and the same, can. At the risk of repeating myself,
that's a bug, and Microsoft, HTC, and/or Sprint shouldn't be let off the
hook just because an alternate browser is available.

Where we ARE in agreement is that the issue is only worth so much time
worrying about. We just differ in how MUCH time! Sadly, you and I have
spent/wasted more time debating the merits of it than anyone has spent
trying to troubleshoot it.


If Roger is still reading, at this point, I'm drawing a blank, and since I
have no device it doesn't work on, I'm unable to troubleshoot it further.
At this point, I'd contact Sprint and HTC and put the ball in their courts
(knowing full well that in all likelyhood nothing will be done about it,
particularly since HTC's usual bug-fix advice is "buy the next model.")

"Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in message
news:U31Xj.135$xb2.71@fe103.usenetserver.com...
>
> If Roger is still reading, at this point, I'm drawing a blank, and since I
> have no device it doesn't work on, I'm unable to troubleshoot it further.
> At this point, I'd contact Sprint and HTC and put the ball in their courts
> (knowing full well that in all likelyhood nothing will be done about it,
> particularly since HTC's usual bug-fix advice is "buy the next model.")

Please give up on Al. I've been through that "New Browser" routine with him
before and there is no stopping him.

As for my Mogul. I know someone that says he has m.tvguide.com working on
his Mogul along with other things like WM6.1 so I'm going to try everything
he did.

"Bob Wang" <bobby_wang@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:q4ednfYxgtlue7XVnZ2dnUVZ_rXinZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> http://www.sprintusers.com/forum/sho...d.php?t=162980
>
> If you don't have a RAR extractor, try open source:
>
> http://peazip.sourceforge.net/

I found something interesting today. It says:

"UPDATE: It looks like we may have jumped the gun with this one. It's come
to our attention that this is not an official ROM leak, but rather a cooked
homebrew ROM put together from an official Kaiser WM6 build."

Source:
http://www.boygeniusreport.com/2008/...ows-mobile-61/

On May 14, 10:35*pm, Todd Allcock <eleccon...@AmericaOnLine.com>
wrote:
> At one time I had five browsers... I'm down to three... [1, 2] and Skyfire, which,
> unless it's improved greatly by the time it's out of beta, will be uninstalled the
> day they start charging for it!

So it dosent work? It looks interesting, but I'm skeptical.

Todd W.

"Todd Wade" <waveright@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5a7d7a32-e7fd-43de-81d3-985cf337426d@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...

> > At one time I had five browsers... I'm down to three... [1, 2] and
> > Skyfire, which,
> > unless it's improved greatly by the time it's out of beta, will be
> > uninstalled the
> > day they start charging for it!

> So it dosent work? It looks interesting, but I'm skeptical.

No, it works, but it's slow, takes forever to start up (checks to see if the
Skyfire server is up and connects to it) and is a little akward to use.
(Tapping on a link when zoomed out zooms you in rather than selects it, even
if the link/page was readable when zoomed out.)

The flash support is nice, but it's certainly my browser of last resort
rather than first choice (which, despite all of it's faults, is still IE
Mobile.)