Symbian OS version 9 announced

Rafe wrote:enhanced 3D garphics and grapgics acceleration

I'm intrigued by these two new buzzwords 8-))

Seriously, Rafe and Ewan, *please* take a couple of seconds to re-read your news posts before hitting that Submit button.

Steve 'Your editor' Litchfield

Or use Psion Spell...😊

Rafe looks around guiltily...

No excuse. Sorry everyone (especially Steve). Must be having one of those moments... The really scary thing is is took me several minutes too the second buzzword... I better make sure spell check works in the next gen news system.

I want to learn more about that 'Advanced Java' thing. Is that Personal Profile or what?

I wonder what happened to Symbian V8.0?

I'm not aware of any devices that use or plan to use it.

The Nokia 6630 is based on Symbian 8.0a.

3230 too.
But isn't it a bit fast. 6630 & 3230 are very new phones but Symbian has announced an improved OS. I think its not a good idea. (I'll buy 6630 soon and always wanted it to be the latest & the best phone. but my dream won't be real)

The thing I don't know is - what is Symbian v1, v2, v3, v4, v5??
I never heard of them.
Do the Symbian programmers know numbers from 6 to 9 lol?

ER1, Series 5 ~ 1997
ER2, Series 5 - minor update of fixes
ER3, Series 5 - minor update of fixes ~ 1998
ER4, licensed to Oregon Scientic for Osaris
ER5 was on the Series 5MX/MC218 (~1999) and Revo.
ER5u was on the Ericsson R380.

The idea for releases now is small and more frequently rather than big and monolithic. This helps Symbian respond to smartphone licensees quicker.

can16358p wrote:The thing I don't know is - what is Symbian v1, v2, v3, v4, v5?? I never heard of them.

The Symbian name only came into use from Symbian OS v5 and onwards.

Symbian OS v1 is identical to EPOC Release 1 or ER1, sometimes also called EPOC32 Release 1. Symbian OS v1 was only used very briefly in the very first Psion Series 5 PDA.

Symbian OS v2 is identical to EPOC Release 2 or ER2. It is not available in any production units.

Symbian OS v3 is identical to EPOC Release 3 or ER3. Symbian OS v3 was used in most production units of Psion Series 5 PDAs.

Symbian OS v4 is identical to EPOC Release 4 or ER4. Symbian OS v4 was used in the Geofox One and the Oregon Scientific Osaris PDAs.

Symbian OS v5 is identical to EPOC Release 5 or ER5. This is the most well known release of the pre-S60 and pre-UIQ versions of Symbian. It was used in the Psion Series 5mx, the Psion Revo, the Psion netBook, the Psion Series 7, the Psion netPad and the Ericsson MC218. A Unicode build of Symbian OS v5 (also called Symbian OS v5.1 or ER5u) was also used in the Ericsson R380 smartphone.

Some of these early Symbian OS v5 powered devices have support for WLAN, GPRS, Ethernet and Bluetooth and a range of advanced features utilised in the smartphones of today. Symbian OS v5 machines are still highly popular and remanufactured Psion Series 5mx are available from www.clove.co.uk. Meanwhile, Psion Teklogix is still manufacturing the Psion netPad - essentially a colour screen version of the Series 5mx in rugged casing with Bluetooth, WLAN and GPRS but without keyboard.

For a short while, Symbian OS v6 was also referred to as EPOC Release 6 or ER6. Even this website was initially called www.allaboutER6.com before the name change from EPOC to Symbian became pervasive.

A screen shot from a Geofox One running Symbian v4 with Eikon user interface with the MENU key pressed.

They're seven years apart but the similarities to Symbian v7 with Series 80 or Series 90 are striking.

WHOOPEE FRUKIN DO
Another OS, just what we need, could they throw a completely-un compatible new memory card in these new phones as well.
Oh yeah and make it dual band 1700/600, that would really seal it.

Symbian begins it slow path to obscurity, FFS what are they doing.

Microsoft will destroy them in 5 yrs.

Jobbed wrote:Another OS, just what we need, could they throw a completely-un compatible new memory card in these new phones as well.

Microsoft will destroy them in 5 yrs.

Actually, the announcement clearly states that V9 is NOT binary compatible with any previous version of the OS. So jobbed's point seems quite valid.

It's all very well symbian being able to adapt quickly to changes, but if they require their developer community to re-write and maintain six or seven versions of the same piece of software, those developers are going to get pissed off pretty quickly and move to another platform.

Symbian do seem to be taking their developers for granted, and that can't be seen as a good thing.

All sounds nice and sexy for the techy folks, but what does it mean for the actual bod in the street? If I'm Jack Consumer (or even his girlfriend Jill) what tangible differences in handsets will this make for me?

Will it solve the dire battery life of current Symbian devices?
Will it reduce the size/weight?
Will it allow me to do anything I can't do with a Symbian phone today?

Bassey wrote:Actually, the announcement clearly states that V9 is NOT binary compatible with any previous version of the OS. So jobbed's point seems quite valid.

Sorry for being thick here, but where does it say that it's not binary compatible?

Steve

Unless I dreamt it (and I may have done, 'cause I can't find any reference to it now) I distinctly recall reading a statement from the initial release notes which said that OS 9 would not be binary compatible with previous versions and that developers would have to make "some small changes" to their existing apps to make them compatible.

But, as I say, I can't remember where and can't find it now.

Please don't tell me I've started dreaming about symbian press conferences. That WOULD be depressing.

For the end user Symbian 9 essentail enables more multimedia features (or at least brings them into the OS core). Yes its likely to lead to better battery life and since one chip phones are possible (from version 8 onwards) size if likely to go down too.

Things like stereo bluetooth, USB mass storage, multi-mega pixel cameras etc. have obvious implications for end users too. Also the graphics capabilities (for games etc.) is greatly enhanced. You'll see much more impressive games.

I think the comment on 9 and the speed with which is happened is interesting. I think its worth bearing in mind how fast the mobile phone technology sector moves (fast than PC's for example), and so its not suprising to see a new OS. Bear in mind also although possibly not binary compatiable in some cases (i.e. the compiled app) as I understand it you need to recompile (because of the new compilers, i.e. the source code is compatiable) only for the new OS (but please not I'm no expert on this). This is not breaking compatiability in the same way that say moving between in Win 3.1 and Win32 might do. Its not even comparable to ER5->ER6. In fact its no different to the fact that some apps have to be recompiled / optimised for something like the 6630 when compared to the 6600.

No doubt more information will emerge in due course about this. I'm surpised there aren't more developers gald to see the back of the current GCC and the fact there'll be a free Eclipse based IDE.

I was referring to the real world, the updated OS will without doubt cause problems with old software, I talk from experience of my 6630, half my old apps don't work.

I've upgraded my phone. upgraded the OS, but in the real world I've gone 3 steps backwards.

Symbian need 1 OS, nothing less will work in the long run, just call it Symbian, all these different series belong in geeks backrooms.

All I get on my WAP site is 'why doesn't it work on my xxx?'
'Oh cos that's a p900 it only works on the p800, no you need a series 40 phone for that, theres a UIQ version but no series 60 version, no the 6630 wont work'

WHAT A FREKIN MESS...PISSUP-BREWERY

I don't agree, you need to support new technology. For example the 6630 needed Series 60 2.6 (which needed Symbian 8) for the 3G capabilities. All OS get upgraded to keep up with new standards and new technology.

Its no different to any other platform (e.g. Garnet and Cobalt on Palm or Magneto on Microsoft Mobile).

Bassey wrote:Actually, the announcement clearly states that V9 is NOT binary compatible with any previous version of the OS. So jobbed's point seems quite valid.

It's all very well symbian being able to adapt quickly to changes, but if they require their developer community to re-write and maintain six or seven versions of the same piece of software, those developers are going to get pissed off pretty quickly and move to another platform.

Symbian do seem to be taking their developers for granted, and that can't be seen as a good thing.

Bassey wrote:Unless I dreamt it (and I may have done, 'cause I can't find any reference to it now) I distinctly recall reading a statement from the initial release notes which said that OS 9 would not be binary compatible with previous versions and that developers would have to make "some small changes" to their existing apps to make them compatible.

Let me offer a theory of your dream's rememberances. As you might be aware of ARM is working on its next generation architecture with a largely new instruction set. This architecture is licenced by Texas Instruments in their new single chip set for mobile phones. One of the additions to OS 9 is support for the ewn TI chip. There is a high likelihood that when OS 9 is compiled towards a target device using the TI chip, it will not be bit compatible with the current ARM architectures. But as noted, this would only hold true for lower end phones using the TI chip or any other chipset using the new ARM architecture. If the OS 9 is compiled towards a target device using XScale or ARM9 using the ARMI, Thumb etc instruction sets, the bit compatibility would still be there.

It's in relation to these matters where you might have read it.

Jobbed wrote:'Oh cos that's a p900 it only works on the p800, no you need a series 40 phone for that, theres a UIQ version but no series 60 version, no the 6630 wont work'

Well, I agree this can be somewhat frustrating, especially when you upgrade your phone and your favourite applications don't work on the new phone. And I still get emails on occasion asking if there is a way to get a particular Psion Series 5 application to work on the Nokia 7710 etc...

But considering the amount of phone manufacturers involved with different user interface strategies I actually think Symbian overall handles this remarkably well!!!

I think the mess in Microsoft is significantly larger. You almost never know beforehand whether or not a particular application will work on a specific device. If you ignore the XP, NT, Me, 98 mess for now and just look at CE flavours. How many incompatible versions are there? More than you can count. Will my iPaq application work in Psion Netbook Pro? Nope. Will an app from one MS Windows Mobile phone work in another? About 30% chance it will. Will my .NET app running in a Symbol Handheld work in an Intermec Handheld? Not without changes.

Jobbed wrote:I was referring to the real world, the updated OS will without doubt cause problems with old software, I talk from experience of my 6630, half my old apps don't work.

I've upgraded my phone. upgraded the OS, but in the real world I've gone 3 steps backwards.

Symbian need 1 OS, nothing less will work in the long run, just call it Symbian, all these different series belong in geeks backrooms.

All I get on my WAP site is 'why doesn't it work on my xxx?'
'Oh cos that's a p900 it only works on the p800, no you need a series 40 phone for that, theres a UIQ version but no series 60 version, no the 6630 wont work'

WHAT A FREKIN MESS...PISSUP-BREWERY

Here is the case in point, it's not Symbian that is at fault here, it's the application developers. I was having a conversation with Ewan on this point previously with regard to the small changes rendering apps from my 9210 unusable on my 9500 because of the OS revision. The reason? Symbian Signed.

As I understand it Symbian lay out certain ground rules that need to be adhered to in order for apps that pass the signing phase to work, and in theory despite the changes in the OS revision, any Symbian Signed app for the 9210 should have been coded in a way that the revision would have no effect on compatability. Now throughout time on Psion PDAs and continuing now on Symbian devices developers have had a tendency to do things the easy way or the short-cut way, things have gone a bit wrong because rather than use a possibly roundabout route that Symbian Signed may want, they've done it directly, and the change in OS revision may change something that stops the previously direct approach working but not the roundabout method.

This is where Java and OPL development stand out though, as despite the OS revisions the OPL and Java API's don't change, so as long as the application is written in one of those 2 languages and designed for the UI you are using then it should work on all devices with that UI.

All your responses are correct but very technical, this means jacksh*t to the ordinary guy in the street, you know those people they are trying to sell these now mass market phones to.
Symbian needs a definate advantage over the creeping death of Microsoft.

Total device compatability would be the clincher, but they seem to be following a different path.

A geek like me grumbles and spends many hours tracking down fixes, Joe in the street goes.
'They're crap them phones'

No, I still can't find where I read it, but I distinctly remember one of the symbian tech-boffins talking about the changes to the Kernel with regards security. The whole OS has been changed so that, when an application is installed, it has different levels of access to the kernel dependant on certification and testing. So a fully tested and certified application will be given full access to the Kernel and the radio API's etc, but a completely uncertified app will basically have bugger all access to anything usefull.

I remember it because it struck me as absurd that I could buy a phone (say the mythical P1000) for �600 and, using my rediculously expensive copy of codewarrior, right an app for MY phone that won't be able to run because symbian have decided I can't be trusted to run MY programs on MY phone.

Anyway, these security changes were the reasons this bloke gave for the changes to the Kernel and he definitely stated that ALL apps would need to be altered to run on V9, but for most it would only require minor changes.

However, I've searched and searched and can't find the article.

Bassey,

This is probably absolutely correct but a completely different beast than bit compatibility. It has more to do with what Steve is talking about here:

http://www.allaboutsymbian.com/features/viewarticle.php?id=145

And I share his worries completely.

In a way its like sandboxing C++ with different sandbox boundaries depending on your Symbian Signed status.

SwitchBlade wrote:Here is the case in point, it's not Symbian that is at fault here, it's the application developers.

[...]

This is where Java and OPL development stand out though, as despite the OS revisions the OPL and Java API's don't change, so as long as the application is written in one of those 2 languages and designed for the UI you are using then it should work on all devices with that UI.

You are wrong. For example: Nokia 9210 had PersonalJava implementation for advanced java app development. Nokia 9500 doesn't have PersonalJava implementations but has J2ME Personal Profile which is not compatible at all so that PersonalJava apps won't work on 9500. If it wasn't enough, 9210 had some utility classes (cawt.jar of example) and nokia encouraged the developers to use them and now these classes are completely missing from the new Communicators. It's not the fault of the developer. And it was just one example.

Joel_ wrote:Nokia 9210 had PersonalJava implementation for advanced java app development. Nokia 9500 doesn't have PersonalJava implementations but has J2ME Personal Profile which is not compatible at all so that PersonalJava apps won't work on 9500. If it wasn't enough, 9210 had some utility classes (cawt.jar of example) and nokia encouraged the developers to use them and now these classes are completely missing from the new Communicators.

So OPL stands alone as Symbian's most important cross-version development tool...
:icon14:

martinharnevie wrote:So OPL stands alone as Symbian's most important cross-version development tool...
:icon14:

No question that OPL is an important language for Symbian development. However, the previous poster is missing the point somewhat about Java. Symbian's commitment is *not* to Personal Java or Personal Profile. Personal Java will be discontinued. Personal Profile will only appear in a device if requested by Symbian licensees (eg. Nokia commissioning a version from IBM for the 9500/9300). For example, do not expect to see Personal Profile in any UIQ devices or Series 60 devices. Ever.

No, Symbian's commitment is to MIDP Java. Initial versions of MIDP Java were very restricted - memory limits, no floating point, no file system access etc. MIDP Java 2.0 with CLDC 1.1 and the new JSRs provides a much better environment including floating point, Bluetooth capability, file system access and PIM access. All these will appear as standard in new Symbian devices as from the second half of 2005 onwards.

So writing software in MIDP Java gives excellent cross-version compatibility within Series 60, UIQ, Series 80. But also such programs can often run on non-Symbian devices - an advantage which OPL software cannot match.

I am not saying MIDP Java is better than OPL or vice versa. Just want to be clear on the merits of each.

Best regards,
Malcolm
www.freepoc.org