smartphone technology out of date

[carnageX]

I placed the youtube embedded code on a website that is both desktop & mobile friendly. The desktop version accepts the youtube video in it's design nicely. The mobile version on the other hand looks awkward with the youtube video being wider then the whole mobile design itself.

---- <----mobile design width
_______ <----youtube video width wider then the mobile design

Never seen that on any of the sites I've seen embedded videos on.

Plus, you can full-screen in mobile anyway which will fit the video to the entire display.

 

[usacustomers]

Never seen that on any of the sites I've seen embedded videos on.

Plus, you can full-screen in mobile anyway which will fit the video to the entire display.

yeah it's so out dated

 

[carnageX]

yeah it's so out dated

I seriously still don't understand why you think that means its "outdated" if web developer is not handling the embedded video correctly. Just a user is on a smaller resolution or smaller width screen, doesn't mean their running on "outdated" hardware.

IMO, that means the web developer is running outdated code, and needs to handle the various widths/resolutions (going with the most common widths of course in order to cut down on development time), update their APIs, etc.

 

[usacustomers]

I seriously still don't understand why you think that means its "outdated" if web developer is not handling the embedded video correctly. Just a user is on a smaller resolution or smaller width screen, doesn't mean their running on "outdated" hardware.

IMO, that means the web developer is running outdated code, and needs to handle the various widths/resolutions (going with the most common widths of course in order to cut down on development time), update their APIs, etc.

A web developer is making less of a design/website for smart phones just so the out dated smart phone can actually load the page. Desktop websites are far more of a design & features which are limitless. You tell me which design/version is more technology advanced?

 

[usacustomers]

You also have to take into consideration that smart phones and mobile browsing has only been a "thing" for about 5 years, whereas desktop browsing has been around since the internet became a "thing". The desktop will obviously have a bias towards internet usage on this front alone but mobile browsing is quickly catching up. Most people who post here even post from their phones while at work.

Nicely said.

 

[PP Mguire]

A web developer is making less of a design/website for smart phones just so the out dated smart phone can actually load the page. Desktop websites are far more of a design & features which are limitless. You tell me which design/version is more technology advanced?

Completely wrong.

Mobile sites and apps are geared for less network traffic due to US carriers having insanely small caps (like 2GB). This is why apps are more popular for things like Facebook, Youtube, or forums as they have tighter control of data usage for each area being loaded.

Some of the newer phones are more powerful than even a lot of desktops like some first gen Core i series. Not to mention the OS's utilizing these are made specifically for a certain hardware set which would be ARM, rather than a PC being made to utilize many different hardware sets.

I'm by no means a mobile power user, and even that's a long shot. I only really use my phone for texting and I do that from my PC because I can type faster on it. Trying to say mobile technology is "outdated" is simply incorrect. If it wasn't for mobile devices being so popular we wouldn't have the massive influx in technology getting smaller, or massive influx in internet usage like we have now. We wouldn't have so much of a push forward for faster, smaller, and less power consumption. That's coming from somebody who hates browsing on the internet on a phone. I don't even like talking on the phone.

 

[carnageX]

A web developer is making less of a design/website for smart phones just so the out dated smart phone can actually load the page. Desktop websites are far more of a design & features which are limitless. You tell me which design/version is more technology advanced?

Unless you're carrying around a 14" laptop with you at all times, it's a necessity because the screen size of a mobile device is physically smaller than that of a full-size desktop. The resolution may be the same, but you can't just scale it down for the small screen - you have to put your important information up first, and scale your menus/images/etc. around that. If you just scaled it down - you wouldn't be able to read it (this is how webpages were on mobile devices when they were first becoming popular). You would have to constantly zoom in/out to navigate pages. Mobile layouts shift controls around and make them flow in a way for a smaller screen. I don't see how having a smaller screen (which even then, are huge for a mobile device such as phones to carry around in your pocket for some models; e.g. the Samsung GNote series). Loading the page isn't the problem - mobile browsers have made leaps and bounds with that - they pretty much all support HTML5 (hell not even all desktop browsers fully support HTML5 yet!), JavaScript (except for a few things that mobile doesn't support, such as printing...though that can be an easy fix IMO), forms, etc. The only issue with mobile is the smaller physical screen size, which requires the "compacted" format of webpages (minimal title content at the top, a "hamburger" menu that pops out to display all the navigation, then your content, then your footer).

 

[usacustomers]

A Normal desktop uses a 3.0 ghz processor chip.

A samsung galaxy uses a 1.7 ghz processor chip.

If that's not out dated technology then I don't know what to tell you

 

[carnageX]

Ermm... what does CPU speed have ANYTHING to do with how dated a system is?

You know that not every desktop runs at 3.0GHz right? And there are phones that run at higher than 1.7GHz? They average out at about 2-2.5GHz. I mean, even the kind of laptops you were talking about (sub 14" screen, lightweight ultrabook or netbook) run at around 1.5 - 2.5GHz on average.

Fastest Processor - Phonegg

Dual core, quad core, even an octo-core. They're just ARM based architecture instead of x86 based. Hell, a lot of mobile processors are just as fast or faster than some desktop CPU's. Sorry, but clock speed isn't everything

 

[PP Mguire]

A Normal desktop uses a 3.0 ghz processor chip.

A samsung galaxy uses a 1.7 ghz processor chip.

If that's not out dated technology then I don't know what to tell you

Ermm... what does CPU speed have ANYTHING to do with how dated a system is?

You know that not every desktop runs at 3.0GHz right? And there are phones that run at higher than 1.7GHz? They average out at about 2-2.5GHz. I mean, even the kind of laptops you were talking about (sub 14" screen, lightweight ultrabook or netbook) run at around 1.5 - 2.5GHz on average.

Fastest Processor - Phonegg

Dual core, quad core, even an octo-core. They're just ARM based architecture instead of x86 based. Hell, a lot of mobile processors are just as fast or faster than some desktop CPU's. Sorry, but clock speed isn't everything

^^ This, and this.
http://www.techist.com/forums/f76/your-cpu-modern-games-guide-those-building-261626/

If by your logic stands true I might as well toss my 3.3GHz 3960x aside for a power hungry AMD that runs at 5GHz and is slower.

Then we have the other issue, ARM and the software running on it doesn't equate to x86 performance.

I guess we can also assume that the tri-core 3.2GHz PowerPC processor in the Xbox 360 is miles ahead of the new Xbox One and PS4 using ~ 1.6Ghz 8 core AMD Jaguar cores, right?

The standard typical internet using laptop will have a 1.3-1.7Ghz Pentium or i3 dual core. Most new phones have 4 or 8 cores for superior multi-tasking.

If anything, old x86 CPUs are outdated. ARM is a much better step forward because the horsepower they have while using so little juice is outstanding.